Daft as it sounds, is Tendulkar underrated?

[DomainK]

It's rare to find Cricket fans and especially experts talk ill of Tendulkar as a player or as a human being outside Aisa. Most anti-Tendulkar cricket fans are found in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

[goose]

Everyone - read dandaroy's post VERY carefully. It's a commonly held sentiment, even amongst some of Tendulkar's staunchest fans and therein lies the underrated argument.

[Scarves]

The world understands how India adores Sachin. If anything they feel sorry for him. As a player I think is way overrated by fans but correctly rated by other players, former players and cricket writers. How can be so rated highly though if his average is not as above as others. Would you then say that the other players are underrated like Dravid, Ponting, Kallis and Sangakkara? Two of them have a better average (Kallis and Sangakkara), Mohammad Yousef is up there as well. So are these guys underrated if Tendulkar is considered underrated by that aspect. Ditto can be said in ODIs. But the thing is that stats don't tell the full story as well but I don't think he is underrated in any aspect of the game.

[randomGuy]

No he is not. His rabid fanbase has managed to get a lot of people annoyed over the years but as a batsman almost everyone rates him as an all time best which he is.

++

I'm going off topic' date=' not that there was really one to begin with, but is his fan base any more rabid or farcical than that of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha? I think the reverse could easily be argued.[/quote'] You agree that his fanbase is rabid/farcical? Just not as much as Jesus's or mohammad's.

[goose]

The world understands how India adores Sachin. If anything they feel sorry for him. As a player I think is way overrated by fans but correctly rated by other players, former players and cricket writers. How can be so rated highly though if his average is not as above as others. Would you then say that the other players are underrated like Dravid, Ponting, Kallis and Sangakkara? Two of them have a better average (Kallis and Sangakkara), Mohammad Yousef is up there as well. So are these guys underrated if Tendulkar is considered underrated by that aspect. Ditto can be said in ODIs. But the thing is that stats don't tell the full story as well but I don't think he is underrated in any aspect of the game.

If the average is so important why is it not the case that every player's best innings is automatically their highest career score? In the top tier of batsman, some need an entire career to assert their greatness, some need a mammoth score or two, some need a single innings, and the truly special manage it in a single delivery. Not all runs are made equal.

[Scarves]

If the average is so important why is it not the case that every player's best innings is automatically their highest career score? In the top tier of batsman' date=' some need an entire career to assert their greatness, some need a mammoth score or two, some need a single innings, and the truly special manage it in a single delivery. Not all runs are made equal.[/quote'] Stats don't paint the full picture but people use them as gospel. That's the point I'm making or I thought I was making. I agree with you in that aspect about stats but they are still important but don't tell the full story. I think that's where you were trying to go with. IMO Tendulkar is rated exactly fine. He is underrated by people who dislike his image and overrated by people who go with his image. This is all generally speaking.

[Deleted_User_1]

If the average is so important why is it not the case that every player's best innings is automatically their highest career score? In the top tier of batsman' date=' some need an entire career to assert their greatness, some need a mammoth score or two, some need a single innings, and the truly special manage it in a single delivery. Not all runs are made equal.[/quote'] If averages do not matter, then it comes to match winning ability. In that respect he does not stand out either. True in the 90s when he was in his prime, he did not have support around him, but post 2000 he did. Dravid and Laxman have played more match winning knocks than him. Look, there is no doubt he is a class act. An all time great. To have played so long and with all these records, there is no doubt. Also there is no doubt about the skill and the talent. Also I will accept folks saying that he is the greatest in modern times. If that is so, then it is by a sliver and is arguable. He just does not stand above his contemporaries like Bradman like did amongst his (note: I am not comparing with Bradman.....different era). He is definitely the greatest Indian batsman of all time. No doubt. P.S. Of all the batsman I have seen, I liked watching Tendulkar bat the most. My main beef with him was this prolonged stay in the team when it was clear to everyone that he basically done. He has done a lot of harm to his legacy by sticking around these 2+ years.

[gattaca]

If averages do not matter, then it comes to match winning ability. In that respect he does not stand out either. True in the 90s when he was in his prime, he did not have support around him, but post 2000 he did. Dravid and Laxman have played more match winning knocks than him. Look, there is no doubt he is a class act. An all time great. To have played so long and with all these records, there is no doubt. Also there is no doubt about the skill and the talent. Also I will accept folks saying that he is the greatest in modern times. If that is so, then it is by a sliver and is arguable. He just does not stand above his contemporaries like Bradman like did amongst his (note: I am not comparing with Bradman.....different era). He is definitely the greatest Indian batsman of all time. No doubt.

Let the great man play his last matches. He has given us enough. Lets enjoy the last of his two matches. I know you dislike him for not retiring after world cup but I think he is addicted to cricket more than anything else He got money he got fame but he still enjoys his cricket which he found tough to say good bye. I laugh when people say he is selfish let him play his last two matches.

[Deleted_User_1]

Let the great man play his last matches. He has given us enough. Lets enjoy the last of his two matches. I know you dislike him for not retiring after world cup but I think he is addicted to cricket more than anything else He got money he got fame but he still enjoys his cricket which he found tough to say good bye. I laugh when people say he is selfish let him play his last two matches.

No I do not think he is selfish. He was just deluded into thinking he still had it in him. I am glad he is calling it a day finally. Hopefully, he can have some respectable scores to go with it now that there is no pressure.

[Crookbond]

Lol wut. A few shlokas by phoren scientists and here we go..:hysterical:

Bola na tujhe - samples ki kami nahi hai duniya mein, ek ko hata 50 aur niklenge.

[maniac]

Lol wut. A few shlokas by phoren scientists and here we go..:hysterical:

Kya bhai..Didn't we live in caves wearing leaves before Phoren Scientists showed us civilization? On that basis may be we should look into what they are saying

[fineleg]

not under rated' date='but I feel he under achieved given his ability.He should hae been comfortably ahead of his peers but he isnt[/quote'] True. Ideally, there should not even be a case for starting SRT vs type threads. But there are so many such discussions. Why? It should have been a clear and shut case. But as it stands, he does not stand too much above the other greats of the game. He is a great legend. But its not like there is daylight between him and the other greats. Should have been SRT . then Daylight . then Other greats. But its not so, nevertheless a gem of highest caliber from India :hatsoff:

[Chalks]

Underachieved based on what? The ridiculous expectations of fanbois (and fangals) for him to make century every innings? Sad as we might be that his average has dropped in past three years, the man is beyond averages. There has been no one like him, nor will be there probably be another like him in the future. I admire him as much for his qualities as a human being as anything he's achieved on the field.

[Raghav_12]

Yes . I think he underachieved. Somebody who was so good even at the age of 19-20 itself should have had much better end numbers. By 93-94 when he was just 20-21, he was already being regarded as the top batsman of the world. He didn't improve that by much as one would have expected. I recall one statement that Allan Border made during india's tour of 92 when Sachin was just 18. He had told that, it is already such a headache to get Sachin out. Don't know how difficult it would be when he is older. But actually it never got more difficult. In 92 tour at the age of 18 he hit 2 centuries in Australia and then he never hit more than 2 on any of australin tours.

[vamos_rafa]

Yes . I think he underachieved. Somebody who was so good even at the age of 19-20 itself should have had much better end numbers. By 93-94 when he was just 20-21, he was already being regarded as the top batsman of the world. He didn't improve that by much as one would have expected. I recall one statement that Allan Border made during india's tour of 92 when Sachin was just 18. He had told that, it is already such a headache to get Sachin out. Don't know how difficult it would be when he is older. But actually it never got more difficult. In 92 tour at the age of 18 he hit 2 centuries in Australia and then he never hit more than 2 on any of australin tours.

There are many factors to consider I think. He was ahead by some distance from his peers in the '90s. As they say, a batsman peaks when they hit the 30's. But, that's coz of the fact that generally players debut when they are 20+. So, they spend around 8-9 years in the international circuit and know their game. Sachin spent 14+ years by the time he turned 30. Come to think of it, it's already a case of burnout isn't it? Also, it did not help that he got so many injuries. It's something like what happend to Rafa now. The wear and tear of having started so early is something which you can't escape. Also, one thing about Sachin is that he never gave the highs and lows of someone like Lara. He was almost there at one consistent level. The fact that his performance dipped in the last 2 years has led his average to go to such levels.

[goose]

I feel that unless you were in your teens or older when Tendulkar debuted there is a grave risk you will underrate him. You have to understand the context of his runs. No amount of time on Youtube can ever give you that. Hell, even I struggle sometimes to cut through the recent performances and recall just how good he was. But alas, one never forgets how one feels no matter how many decades pass. It was simply impossible to imagine how anyone could possibly better what this man was doing. That's why the Bradman comparisons came way, way before he owned a single batting record.

[Crookbond]

I feel that unless you were in your teens or older when Tendulkar debuted there is a grave risk you will underrate him. You have to understand the context of his runs. No amount of time on Youtube can ever give you that. Hell' date= even I struggle sometimes to cut through the recent performances and recall just how good he was. But alas, one never forgets how one feels no matter how many decades pass. It was simply impossible to imagine how anyone could possibly better what this man was doing. That's why the Bradman comparisons came way, way before he owned a single batting record.

But, apparently it's quite cool to judge yesteryear greats with 2-3 Youtube videos.

[putrevus]

He never learnt the art of making big hundreds, it took him 70 tests to get his double hundred, with his Consistency if he had knack of making big hundreds there would be no debate at all on who is the greatest. He had no weakness in his game at all yet huge scores eluded him. Maybe it is the product of him getting debut at 16 he never had a chance to develop habbit of scoring big.

[goose]

He was the master of the hundred as evidenced by the fantastic conversion rate (similar number of 50s and 100s) throughout his career in tests. In one-day cricket, where 275 was a formidable team score, 100+ was sufficient to win games on his own. Perhaps that's where the habit was formed.