Why Tendulkar must retire now

[The Outsider]

Besides WC finals, Tendulkar has failed in so many finals (i've lost count) in the past decade. In fact, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid collectively failed for years together and its not until Dhoni took over we were able to right this wrong.

And yet averages 55 in finals after all those failures? The successes were because of Dhoni giving him kaanphidense?

Just two years ago, he could have finished as arguably the greatest batsman of the modern era. With the last two years of mediocrity and another year or so of it, he may end up with a below 50 average and a possible question over whether he would make it to the top 3 list of his own generation - what a humiliating finish for a batsman who was always talked of as the greatest since Bradman.

The last two years of failures or twenty subsequent years of failures can do as much to Tendulkar's legacy as they did to Richards' - jack$h!t. Tendulkar was heralded as a great of the game in the 90s when he did not have the stats that the number crunching junta is obsessed about and he would be heralded as a legend even if he does not have the stats due to failures at the age of 40. Only for the number crunching junta will Tendulkar's legacy be destroyed by what he does now.

[harmuk]

In ODI cricket' date=' Dravid and Ganguly were dropped within a few months of the World Cup and [b']Tendulkar was instrumental in playing a winning role in many subsequent triumphs.

Excepting the game that matters the most obviously. But thanks to GG, Virat and MSD we ended up with the cup this time, exactly two years to date

[rkt.india]

He does. Otherwise how you'll explain Dhoni being allowed to captain in Aus series.

Because other options (read Viru, GG) were *****ier.

[rkt.india]

Some of you Sachin-fans should really see the 1983 WC finals :giggle: If chasing 360 is a hectic task in modern day cricket, wonder what defending 183 in 55 over game against the greatest team is considered to be :beee:

When you are defending 183 on a track where there is help available for seam bowlers, bowler needs just one good ball to dismiss a batsman. On such a pitch, gap between a good and average side narrows down where their bowlers come into play and Indian team was average and that was an upset and such upsets do happen now and then in cricket. Here was a different story because our bowlers were already thrashed all around the park and pitch had some bounce and pace against the best fast bowling attack of that time and it was not just about survival but to score at a brisk pace.

[vamos_rafa]

If I am glorifying a knock' date=' then you are degrading an achievement in 83 saying it was a lot different. A WC Final is a final. Pressure was similar.[/quote'] Where did I do that?? Right through the 90's a score of 220+ was considered a good total in places like England/Oz/SA. So, run scoring was not like what it is today. Chasing a total was not something most teams were mastered at like now.

[vamos_rafa]

Er' date=' Grit ... 4 chances he gave ... you say that as grit. Now that is glorifying in its true sense.[/quote'] I wrote luck first and then grit. So, since Steve Waugh was dropped by Gibbs in the 99 super 6 match, does that make his inning any less grittier? You should watch the highlights of the SF. Not even a single batsman bar Sehwag was able to play freely. UV went for duck, Kohli, Gambhir,Dhoni all failed. Sachin was the one who held the innings together somehow. Yes, he rode his luck, but he somehow managed 85. Also, note that I said it was a match tilting on eand not match winning. That was played by Raina IMO.

[carnish]

I wrote luck first and then grit. So, since Steve Waugh was dropped by Gibbs in the 99 super 6 match, does that make his inning any less grittier? You should watch the highlights of the SF. Not even a single batsman bar Sehwag was able to play freely. UV went for duck, Kohli, Gambhir,Dhoni all failed. Sachin was the one who held the innings together somehow. Yes, he rode his luck, but he somehow managed 85. Also, note that I said it was a match tilting on eand not match winning. That was played by Raina IMO.

Waugh was dropped just once and he capitalised. A mistake that can always happen. Twice dropped, lucky. But dropped 4 times means he sucked. Offered 5 chances in 80-odd score and somehow the Pakistanis refused to take his catch until finally Sir Afridi did. Had the others got even one chance each, they would have probably hammered the Pakistanis out of the game by getting 300+. But then its just my opinion, but that was his worst innings I ever saw, and that includes all the failures in last 2 years.

[vamos_rafa]

Waugh was dropped just once and he capitalised. A mistake that can always happen. Twice dropped' date=' lucky. But dropped 4 times means he sucked. Offered 5 chances in 80-odd score and somehow the Pakistanis refused to take his catch until finally Sir Afridi did. Had the others got even one chance each, they would have probably hammered the Pakistanis out of the game by getting 300+. But then its just my opinion, but that was his worst innings I ever saw, and that includes all the failures in last 2 years.[/quote'] Where have I said that the innigs was good? I have simply been stating that he rode his luck and stayed around.

[vamos_rafa]

Excepting the game that matters the most obviously. But thanks to GG' date=' Virat and MSD we ended up with the cup this time, exactly two years to date[/quote'] Virat? What did he do in the QFs and SFs? For the record, Sachin scored a very important 50 in the QFs and was the highest run-scorer in the SFs(albeit it being a very scratchy inning).

[Crookbond]

He does. Otherwise how you'll explain Dhoni being allowed to captain in Aus series.

If only people practised what they preach.

[saneindian]

Excepting the game that matters the most obviously. But thanks to GG' date= Virat and MSD we ended up with the cup this time, exactly two years to date

As the 2007 WC showed us, the most important matches are played in the early part of the tournament..

[Number]

As the 2007 WC showed us' date=' the most important matches are played in the early part of the tournament..[/quote'] The most important game is the one in which Sachin fails. Some geniuses have already established that 1. Semi-finals are not must win. 2. Quarter finals are not must win.

[harmuk]

As the 2007 WC showed us' date=' the most important matches are played in the early part of the tournament..[/quote']True that. Agassi once observed 'You can only lose a grand slam title in the first week'. He meant you need to play well in the first week, if you want to be there in the second and win the finals. So applying that analogy without a doubt you need to do well in the initial stages of any WC, but to win it in the finals you need to perform at your very best and more importantly deliver when it matters in the big game such as a WC Final.

[Ultimate_Game]

The most important game is the one in which Sachin fails. Some geniuses have already established that 1. Semi-finals are not must win. 2. Quarter finals are not must win.

Nope. Others are saying the biggest game in cricket is a WC Final. The pressure associated with that game is unparalleled coz players know they may not get a chance to play in another WC final ever. They may get to play WC knockout games again but no guarantee they will ever get a chance to play in the WC final, just like it is in Superbowl in NFL. Playoffs are important but there's a reason Superbowl has its own MVP, coz that's the biggest game there is. Same with WC Final.

[Lurker]

The most important game is the one in which Sachin fails. Some geniuses have already established that 1. Semi-finals are not must win. 2. Quarter finals are not must win.

Not sure if anyone has said that really. They are all important, they are knock-offs afterall. However, final is final. No sprinter wants to come 1 in Olympics semi finals and then cr@p out in finals, does he? Same with cricket and cricketing greats. This is just one simple criteria. Unfortunately the defense of this criteria makes this a long unwinding debate, when there is really no need :headshake:

[Muloghonto]

Not sure if anyone has said that really. They are all important, they are knock-offs afterall. However, final is final. No sprinter wants to come 1 in Olympics semi finals and then cr@p out in finals, does he? Same with cricket and cricketing greats. This is just one simple criteria. Unfortunately the defense of this criteria makes this a long unwinding debate, when there is really no need :headshake:

This is a 'glamor criteria' purely dreamt up by the fans. For in terms of playing condition, pressure and clutch play, a World Cup final is no different than a world cup quarter final. Its only in cricket where fans have started to put this particular clutch scenario- which is no more clutch than a whole gamut of others- on some sort of pedestral. NFL comparisons are irrelevant, the NFL is 90% about coaching strategy and 10% about player skill. This is why NFL teams have legions of lip readers and why the microphones in NFL have a big fat lip-hider to it. But no, this whole 'must boil careers down to 1/2 matches that we are going to artificially inflate in playing value, because we are morons who watch the sport, not play it' is ridiculous. I guess based on 'world cup finals is all that matters', Collis King should be an auto-select to any ODI XI, since he outshone even Viv in the finals, Sehwag is the greatest Indian ODI batsman of all and Akhtar is a better bowler than Wasim Akram. Sigh. I sometimes wonder why do people who barely understand the sport from a players's perspective get so hoity-toity about their opinions, which are purely formented from playing gilli-danda and watching tv.

[Ultimate_Game]

This is a 'glamor criteria' purely dreamt up by the fans. For in terms of playing condition, pressure and clutch play, a World Cup final is no different than a world cup quarter final. Its only in cricket where fans have started to put this particular clutch scenario- which is no more clutch than a whole gamut of others- on some sort of pedestral. NFL comparisons are irrelevant, the NFL is 90% about coaching strategy and 10% about player skill. This is why NFL teams have legions of lip readers and why the microphones in NFL have a big fat lip-hider to it. But no, this whole 'must boil careers down to 1/2 matches that we are going to artificially inflate in playing value, because we are morons who watch the sport, not play it' is ridiculous. I guess based on 'world cup finals is all that matters', Collis King should be an auto-select to any ODI XI, since he outshone even Viv in the finals, Sehwag is the greatest Indian ODI batsman of all and Akhtar is a better bowler than Wasim Akram. Sigh. I sometimes wonder why do people who barely understand the sport from a players's perspective get so hoity-toity about their opinions, which are purely formented from playing gilli-danda and watching tv.

Says the guy who believes Kitply Cup and World Cup finals are the same to players :giggle:

[Muloghonto]

Says the guy who believes Kitply Cup and World Cup finals are the same to players :giggle:

Find me a player who says that it is harder to play a world cup final than kitply cup and you may have a case. Has any player uttered such words ? 99% of how hard it is to play is determined by the pitch and the opposition. Not what 'stage' the match is held at. This is why no analyst worth his salt has ever dared rating players on the basis of World Cup finals. But you guys who have never played cricket wouldn't know that because 100% of your cricketing knowledge is from listening to commentators and checking on stats.

[Ultimate_Game]

Find me a player who says that it is harder to play a world cup final than kitply cup and you may have a case. Has any player uttered such words ? 99% of how hard it is to play is determined by the pitch and the opposition. Not what 'stage' the match is held at. This is why no analyst worth his salt has ever dared rating players on the basis of World Cup finals. But you guys who have never played cricket wouldn't know that because 100% of your cricketing knowledge is from listening to commentators and checking on stats.

Yup and you have descended here sharing the wisdom you have gleaned after playing in numerous world cups :giggle: Maybe you need to revisit some of the statements by Indian players what it meant to win the World Cup. Haven't heard similar statements after winning other tourneys. Wonder why :hmmm: Maybe you will also do well do read up on some of the studies performed regarding performing under pressure in sports, i.e. choking or excelling in trying scenarios. I remember one study where the exercise involved with study group putting a golf ball 10 times in an indoor course. Scores for all the players were kept and then they were told that they would get $20 if they could lower their score in the next 10 shots. The study showed a remarkable drop in the scores for most people. Then the exercise was repeated but the "prize" was hiked to $100 in case the players better the scores from their initial round. Researchers found that the number dropped some more. Researchers found plenty of folks under-performed but there were a few who not only performed well but excelled as the stakes grew higher. The same exercise was performed with basketball to check for sports based biases (golf compared to basketball) and the nos. were remarkably similar. Study proved that there are folks who do under-perform under pressure and the under-performance can be more if the stakes are higher. To me shooting for $20 would be Kitply Cup whereas bettering the scores when the stake is $100 would be the World Cup as the stakes are higher. Maybe you need to check out some of those studies coz to me Tendulkar would be someone who would find it hard to better his performances under pressure. But I'm sure to you this study is meaningless as to you performing when there's nothing much at stake (Kitply Cup) and lots (World Cup final) the the same :giggle:

[Muloghonto]

Yup and you have descended here sharing the wisdom you have gleaned after playing in numerous world cups :giggle:

Seems like I have played enough cricket to know the very basics that you guys have no clue on- such as pressure is due to the match status (must win or not) and match condition ( how many wickets left ? how many runs requiered ? how many balls left ?etc) and not whether it is a world cup match or not.

Maybe you need to revisit some of the statements by Indian players what it meant to win the World Cup. Haven't heard similar statements after winning other tourneys. Wonder why :hmmm:

All players say the same thing when they win touneys and i am yet to hear a player say that winning the world cup final is the hardest match to play in. Maybe you can find some former players who have played in the world cup finals who say that it is the hardest match/the most pressure intensive match etc ?

Maybe you will also do well do read up on some of the studies performed regarding performing under pressure in sports, i.e. choking or excelling in trying scenarios. I remember one study where the exercise involved with study group putting a golf ball 10 times in an indoor course. Scores for all the players were kept and then they were told that they would get $20 if they could lower their score in the next 10 shots. The study showed a remarkable drop in the scores for most people. Then the exercise was repeated but the "prize" was hiked to $100 in case the players better the scores from their initial round. Researchers found that the number dropped some more. Researchers found plenty of folks under-performed but there were a few who not only performed well but excelled as the stakes grew higher. The same exercise was performed with basketball to check for sports based biases (golf compared to basketball) and the nos. were remarkably similar. Study proved that there are folks who do under-perform under pressure and the under-performance can be more if the stakes are higher.

A strawman argument. I never said that there is no such thing as pressure vs no pressure scenario, what i said is that you guys are differentiating the world cup final from all other pressure based scenarios artificially, purely from the glamor angle to it, which has nothing to do with cricket. As such, pressure scenario = tournament finals, elimination rounds and 'must win group stage' games. If you are passing some sort of judgement based on the entire gamut of high pressure situations, fine. But you are not. You are trying to convince us that world cup finals are somehow more special and harder than all the other pressure scenarios. Which is utter bollocks and which is why, as i said, no author worth their salt has ever made a case of greatness on the basis of world cup finals.

To me shooting for $20 would be Kitply Cup whereas bettering the scores when the stake is $100 would be the World Cup as the stakes are higher.

To you, who is not a cricketer or has ever played even a 3 day game at any level, is irrelevant. To cricketers and sportsmen, the $20 would be a round robin match with zero consequences to the main objective and $100 would be any game where loss = elimination from the greater prize. Not just world cup finals.

Maybe you need to check out some of those studies coz to me Tendulkar would be someone who would find it hard to better his performances under pressure. But I'm sure to you performing when there's nothing much at stake (Kitply Cup) and lots (World Cup final) would be the same.

Performing while the chips are down and the odds are heavily stacked in the opposition's favor, in a must win match is pressure. Does not matter if its the Kitply cup, world cup finals, world cup semi finals or the quarters. That is the part that someone who has never played cricket seriously at any level will not understand.