Why Tendulkar must retire now

[CSK Fan]

Anyhow all these comparisons across sports is kind of a futile exercise. But to me Tendulkar is a stat king' date=' I would never compare him to Michael Jordan who was the biggest winner there is in team sport, upping the ante when it counted the most like in a NBA finals and winning each of the finals he was in (six), primarily with his play and presence. Of course I am keeping Tiger, Phelps etc out of this given that they are part of an individual sport.[/quote']

[Crookbond]

Clearly you have no idea about how cricket works as team game. Its one of the very rare games where there are 3 equally important aspects, batting, bowling and fielding. No matter how much you influence one factor (eg Sachin with batting) and other factors will be equally important in team wins. No matter if a batsman scores 600 runs by itself, it wont win you a game if your bowlers still dont pick 20 wickets BTW Sachin has one of the best records in finals of games and most of the finals India has won (including first ever series win in Aus) is because of Sachin. I am sure you have no idea about this at all. Yes, you bring 2 world cup finals into question but a grand sample of 2 matches, in one where he was chasing 360+ is not enough to come to any conclusions. There is a reason most experts of the game, past and current players, etc rate Sachin. And remember Sachin was rated as one of the best ever before he broke even one single record. So all this talk of stats you guys bring up are just clutching at straws, because you are being dishonest about his being rated as one of the best ever in the 90s. Sachin is the first mordern name being put in the team list for any world XI, by any expert of the game. From Bradman to Viv to Donald, all rate Sachin highly. Because they know that if Sachin had a better team, he would have won many more matches. One of the prime example is that, In India's rise to no 1 in test, he was one of the highest contributor. This was when he was past his peak, imagine if he had a similar team in his peak!! One of the biggest lies which Sachin detractors bring up is that he is all about stats. they wilfully ignore the fact that Sachin was rated as one of the best ever much, much before he broke a single record. And all I have to say is that if you find yourself on the opposing side of most experts of the game, all past and present players, any critic, etc, then its more likely that its you who are competely wrong with your assumptions (particularly since you seem to have a clear bias against a player) than all of them being so wrong about a player whom they rate so highly. And no, no expert is ever going to rate anyone on the basis of stats. They know who plays how, they know a player's potential, they know his capabilties. When a bowler like donald rates him, its not on the basis of how many 100s was scored against him. Don Bradman didnt look at Sachin's longetivity while rating him. Nor did any of the other experts. If they all unanimously rate him so highly, its because they understand the game. Experts might have their biases, but no other player has such an unanimous consesuses of greatness in mordern times like Sachin has. ditto for the fan following, when the common man on the street still cheers for him, he doesnt look at the 100s column. they cheered for him much before his recirds started piling in. The records are just a plus. They love the man becuase he has been one of the best for India, and stood up for India all these times. Talking about stats, something incidental which happened after 16-17 years of a player's career and ignoring the period before that time is the height of dishonesty and something which I only expect from some dishonest Pak fans

I would like to read someone contest that claim.

[rkt.india]

Ricky was also rated him becoming one of the best ever by Aussies even before he debuted for Aus.

[CSK Fan]

I would like to read someone contest that claim.

When people claim that Sachin is only about stats, they ignored the fact he was rated as one of the best way before he had a single record. Records only started tumbling in the last few years. Why was he rated so high if Sachin was only about longetivity and stats (and these people claim)

[Crookbond]

When people claim that Sachin is only about stats' date= they ignored the fact he was rated as one of the best way before he had a single record. Records only started tumbling in the last few years. Why was he rated so high if Sachin was only about longetivity and stats (and these people claim) For [2], just argue against the merit of the discussion than bring your emotional view point. I understand he's a role model to you, me and many others but at some point you've got to accept that different people would think differently about him.

Two things MTC [1] Rated as the BEST [2] Being the BEST For [1] the argument is subjective and there are many such players who were rated as good as Bradman but were unfortunate like Archie Jackson

[CSK Fan]

Two things MTC [1] Rated as the BEST [2] Being the BEST For [1] the argument is subjective and there are many such players who were rated as good as Bradman but were unfortunate like Archie Jackson For [2], just argue against the merit of the discussion than bring your emotional view point. I understand he's a role model to you, me and many others but at some point you've got to accept that different people would think differently about him.

I dont see the difference between the first and second point honestly. How do you declare a batsman the best? Even the ideas/stats/theories being brought about by U_G etc are as or more subjective than the fan boys. Doesnt this happen in any field that the person (scinetist/scholar, etc) who are rated most by his peers, his superiors, critics and experts are considered the best? In that case Sachin is more or less a clear front-runner after Bradman in cricket. As for the emotional view-point, when the original critic brings his own biases into the posts, it will usually be answered by similar replies. Just check some of Harmuk's previous posts on Indian players and then tell me if I have not actually been restrained and polite in my replies. Posters need to win their respects too and while I might respect posters like you and Sidhoni because they deserve it, I cannot force respect in the case of such posters like Harmuk and U_G

[ravishingravi]

Sachin is greatest sportsman ever, period.

[harmuk]

Clearly you have no idea about how cricket works as team game. Its one of the very rare games where there are 3 equally important aspects, batting, bowling and fielding. No matter how much you influence one factor (eg Sachin with batting) and other factors will be equally important in team wins. No matter if a batsman scores 600 runs by itself, it wont win you a game if your bowlers still dont pick 20 wickets BTW Sachin has one of the best records in finals of games and most of the finals India has won (including first ever series win in Aus) is because of Sachin. I am sure you have no idea about this at all. Yes, you bring 2 world cup finals into question but a grand sample of 2 matches, in one where he was chasing 360+ is not enough to come to any conclusions. There is a reason most experts of the game, past and current players, etc rate Sachin. And remember Sachin was rated as one of the best ever before he broke even one single record. So all this talk of stats you guys bring up are just clutching at straws, because you are being dishonest about his being rated as one of the best ever in the 90s. Sachin is the first mordern name being put in the team list for any world XI, by any expert of the game. From Bradman to Viv to Donald, all rate Sachin highly. Because they know that if Sachin had a better team, he would have won many more matches. One of the prime example is that, In India's rise to no 1 in test, he was one of the highest contributor. This was when he was past his peak, imagine if he had a similar team in his peak!! One of the biggest lies which Sachin detractors bring up is that he is all about stats. they wilfully ignore the fact that Sachin was rated as one of the best ever much, much before he broke a single record. And all I have to say is that if you find yourself on the opposing side of most experts of the game, all past and present players, any critic, etc, then its more likely that its you who are competely wrong with your assumptions (particularly since you seem to have a clear bias against a player) than all of them being so wrong about a player whom they rate so highly. And no, no expert is ever going to rate anyone on the basis of stats. They know who plays how, they know a player's potential, they know his capabilties. When a bowler like donald rates him, its not on the basis of how many 100s was scored against him. Don Bradman didnt look at Sachin's longetivity while rating him. Nor did any of the other experts. If they all unanimously rate him so highly, its because they understand the game. Experts might have their biases, but no other player has such an unanimous consesuses of greatness in mordern times like Sachin has. ditto for the fan following, when the common man on the street still cheers for him, he doesnt look at the 100s column. they cheered for him much before his recirds started piling in. The records are just a plus. They love the man becuase he has been one of the best for India, and stood up for India all these times. Talking about stats, something incidental which happened after 16-17 years of a player's career and ignoring the period before that time is the height of dishonesty and something which I only expect from some dishonest Pak fans

You can rant all you want, but he just is not a bigger winner than Jordan in his own sport by the way, there are many who played better than him in more trying conditions many a time and are considered better by the same experts, you claim. That is just a fact. So what? Also you are on and on about the experts, who by the way have rated Jordan the best athlete of the 20th century in NA ahead of the likes of Ali, Ruth, Owens etc. across all of sports. I am sure Tendulkar just in his own sport in his own country will not be rated the best cricketer, as that honor belongs to Kapil Dev. So yeah you can bask in the glory of all those experts waxing eloquencies about Sachin, without understanding the context of what is been debated here.

[Crookbond]

I dont see the difference between the first and second point honestly. How do you declare a batsman the best? Even the ideas/stats/theories being brought about by U_G etc are as or more subjective than the fan boys. Doesnt this happen in any field that the person (scinetist/scholar, etc) who are rated most by his peers, his superiors, critics and experts are considered the best? In that case Sachin is more or less a clear front-runner after Bradman in cricket. As for the emotional view-point, when the original critic brings his own biases into the posts, it will usually be answered by similar replies. Just check some of Harmuk's previous posts on Indian players and then tell me if I have not actually been restrained and polite in my replies. Posters need to win their respects too and while I might respect posters like you and Sidhoni because they deserve it, I cannot force respect in the case of such posters like Harmuk and U_G

MTC, [1] was to declare a prospective talent and predict a future. [2] was on basis of his performances. You like it or not statistics are important and different people can look at them differently. Your PoV on posters attaining respect is pretty much valid and accepted. But, I think you are placing your gun on the wrong targets here (personal opinion).Btw, I think that U_G considers Tendulkar as one of THE best (if not the BEST) batsman of all time. The disagreement is on the current utility of Tendulkar in the Indian cricket team and NOT his overall stature/standing in the game. I guess you understand that.

[harmuk]

When people claim that Sachin is only about stats' date=' they ignored the fact he was rated as one of the best way before he had a single record. Records only started tumbling in the last few years. Why was he rated so high if Sachin was only about longetivity and stats (and these people claim)[/quote']Sachin is not just about stats but he also about stats and is quite obsessed with them, which is quite obvious to many and these last 2 years of his hanging around, with each passing series only validates that.

[rkt.india]

Archie Jackson averaged 47 in 8 tests, 45 in 70 FC matches. How would he have rivaled Bradman? http://www.firstpost.com/sports/time-for-tendulkar-to-take-a-call-on-his-future-676220.html

[JaFanatic]

You can rant all you want, but he just is not a bigger winner than Jordan in his own sport by the way, there are many who played better than him in more trying conditions many a time and are considered better by the same experts, you claim. That is just a fact. So what? Also you are on and on about the experts, who by the way have rated Jordan the best athlete of the 20th century in NA ahead of the likes of Ali, Ruth, Owens etc. across all of sports. I am sure Tendulkar just in his own sport in his own country will not be rated the best cricketer, as that honor belongs to Kapil Dev. So yeah you can bask in the glory of all those experts waxing eloquencies about Sachin, without understanding the context of what is been debated here.

its really simple he rants when you cant answer

[The Outsider]

L'Etranger you have eneterd a discussion beyond your knowledge:cantstop: Let it go. NFL is not your thing. :--D

That's the whole point. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of soccer knows of Pele and Maradona, someone who knows jack about tennis still knows of Federer, someone like me who watches NFL 2-3 times a year knows about Payton and Montana, similarly someone who has a cursory know how of cricket knows of Tendulkar. That is the elite league Tendulkar should be compared in, not to some Favre. PS: I checked up his ranking in one of the ranking compilations and it seems he was ranked 28. This might not be the most accurate listing, but based on this he is in the Inzi bhai category, so maybe I was a bit harsh with my Damien Martyn assessment, but only a bit harsh. http://www.imdb.com/list/ZxCB9GhMNw4/

[vamos_rafa]

That's the whole point. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of soccer knows of Pele and Maradona' date=' someone who knows jack about tennis still knows of Federer, someone like me who watches NFL 2-3 times a year knows about Payton and Montana, similarly someone who has a cursory know how of cricket knows of Tendulkar. That is the elite league Tendulkar should be compared in, not to some Favre.[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up:

[namasteji1]

Have a look at this image at the end of Kotla Test, never seen Sachin wave like this at end of any match:

[Crookbond]

Archie Jackson averaged 47 in 8 tests, 45 in 70 FC matches. How would he have rivaled Bradman?

Archie Jackson played through illness for some of those 8 Test matches

But we had a feeling that something was amiss with this young fellow in 1930. Those of us who were closely associated with him knew that the English climate did not suit him; he was not himself. He still batted with the same charm that only he was capable of, but it was apparent that he was not the same Archie as that of 1928-29.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/216002.html How much did Bradman average before making his debut for Australia? Their averages and records were pretty similar IIIRC.

[King Tendulkar]

That's the whole point. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of soccer knows of Pele and Maradona, someone who knows jack about tennis still knows of Federer, someone like me who watches NFL 2-3 times a year knows about Payton and Montana, similarly someone who has a cursory know how of cricket knows of Tendulkar. That is the elite league Tendulkar should be compared in, not to some Favre. PS: I checked up his ranking in one of the ranking compilations and it seems he was ranked 28. This might not be the most accurate listing, but based on this he is in the Inzi bhai category, so maybe I was a bit harsh with my Damien Martyn assessment, but only a bit harsh. http://www.imdb.com/list/ZxCB9GhMNw4/

No offence your definition of superstars in other sports seems a bit pre 90s:--D

[King Tendulkar]

Have a look at this image at the end of Kotla Test, never seen Sachin wave like this at end of any match:

Agree. I dont know why but his waving seemed more farewell then celebarations

[SLICKR392]

Have a look at this image at the end of Kotla Test, never seen Sachin wave like this at end of any match:

Lol? He is always animated while beating Australia. Home or away. He looked more animated after beating Aus 2-0 in 2010.

[CSK Fan]

You can rant all you want' date=' but he just is not a bigger winner than Jordan in his own sport by the way, there are many who played better than him in more trying conditions many a time and are considered better by the same experts, you claim. That is just a fact. So what?[/quote'] As I said, cricket cannot be equated with NBA. In NBA one set of skills can help you dominate. In cricket you are still at the mercy of your other team players. All I am claiming is that Sachin with the same set of player, at his peak, which say Waugh or Ponting or even Dhoni has now, would have won a great many more matches. I am also claiming Sachin is one of the greatest performers in tournament finals. I dont know what experts you are quoting here, so will let that pass