Selfish Hayden cost Australia '05 Ashes

[Lurker]

And you havent done the same to me and others here ?

Within this thread? Nope. Have I?

and what has this got to do with scoring 1653 runs in 22 innings ? Do you not see the difference between scoring 3000 runs in 60 innings as opposed to 1653 in 22 ? :whatchutalkingabout

Which is why you could have given me the benefit of the doubt and asked away. Here is what I arrived at that number. At test 112(when SRT's slump started), he was averaging 58. Based on his past perfomances I would say okay he is good for 40 more tests. Which amounts to say 65 innings, give or take a few. With me so far? Okay now I do not expect him to score at 58(his career average) but I can expect him to score at 50(most batsman of our time do). So if we average 50 over 65 innings that should come to 3250 runs. Lets take away 250 runs from him and round it to 3000 runs. So yes I would expect a batsman of Sachin's stature to score about 3000 runs in 40 tests. Indeed in his best phase he has scored 3000 runs in 31 tests, 27 and 29 tests. So I think my assertion is rather fair. With me so far? Okay 3000 runs in 40 tests, he has scored 1347 in 25 which means 1653 runs in 15 tests. Say 20 odd innings, and hence the high average. Now you know how the figures were arrived at. Tell me: a) Where am I going wrong. b) If I had asked you the question when Sachin was at his 112 Test@58 and asked you where you see him at the end of 152 Test, what would your answer be? xxx

[Donny]

Aren't there enough Sachin topics without turning this into another one ? Can we get back to the selfish Matt Hayden ?

[Bumper]

Aren't there enough Sachin topics without turning this into another one ? Can we get back to the selfish Matt Hayden ?

But the root cause of this thread was Sachin :haha:

[The Outsider]

:hysterical::hysterical: Never knew a sarcastic thread on a Hayden innings more than 2 years back would sell like umbrellas in Seattle.

[bharat297]

Look, my point about Sachin is that ... since his return from injury late last year his general batting form has been pretty good and improving every game. The main reason his stats from past 2 years are so low was due to a dissapointing patch late 2005 and early 2006. * In 2004, he scored 1000+ runs in the calender year * In 2005 he averaged 44 from 6 tests with a century and 3 fifties, until a slight dip in form at the end which carried on into early 06 * In 2006, he received a major injury and was out of the game for a while, but had a reasonable series in SAF. * In 2007, he is returning back to good form, with some strong performances in England. His stats are skewed due to 1 bad patch prior to a major injury, and as we have seen throughout the thread, it happens to the best of players. It is very rare that you find an extended period of time in which Sachin remians injury free and is still out of form.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Look, my point about Sachin is that ... since his return from injury late last year his general batting form has been pretty good and improving every game. The main reason his stats from past 2 years are so low was due to a dissapointing patch late 2005 and early 2006. * In 2004, he scored 1000+ runs in the calender year * In 2005 he averaged 44 from 6 tests with a century and 3 fifties, until a slight dip in form at the end which carried on into early 06 * In 2006, he received a major injury and was out of the game for a while, but had a reasonable series in SAF. * In 2007, he is returning back to good form, with some strong performances in England. His stats are skewed due to 1 bad patch prior to a major injury, and as we have seen throughout the thread, it happens to the best of players. It is very rare that you find an extended period of time in which Sachin remians injury free and is still out of form.

Hmm, never knew that he was injured during the below series: Ind-SL 2005 Ind-Pak 2006 Ind-Eng 2006 Ind-SA 2006 Is he gonna be injured during the upcoming three big series also ?:haha:

[bharat297]

I am not going to respond to that other than to say .... read my post again ... very carefully.

[Bumper]

I am not going to respond to that other than to say .... read my post again ... very carefully.

Am afraid i read it too carefully

In 2006, he received a major injury and was out of the game for a while, but had a reasonable series in SAF.

This is hardly how 2006 could be swept under the carpet

[bharat297]

Ok I am afraid I will have to explain it .... I said ... he had 1 poor patch PRIOR to a major injury. After the major injury in 06, when one would almost excuse him for a poor series in SAF he had a reasonable one, and since then his form has been improving. It was just the 1 poor period of 5-6 months that is skewing his stats.

[Bumper]

Ok I am afraid I will have to explain it .... I said ... he had 1 poor patch PRIOR to a major injury. After the major injury in 06, when one would almost excuse him for a poor series in SAF he had a reasonable one, and since then his form has been improving. It was just the 1 poor period of 5-6 months that is skewing his stats.

Which one of the Ind-Pak, Ind-Eng'06 series was brilliant ? And if you recall he wasnt injured until the ODI series was just about begin against England. Pedantics aside, u still havent answered my qn. What is your success metric. Lay it down in numbers on a series by series basis, so we dont have any ambiguity come March next year!

[The Outsider]

Pedantics aside' date=' u still havent answered my qn. What is your success metric. Lay it down in numbers on a series by series basis, so we dont have any ambiguity come March next year![/quote'] Thank God cricket isn't played on the basis of these predefined metrics or else it would such a boring sport to follow and watch and a matchwinning 55 against arguably the best side ever to play Test cricket on a minefield would be 8 times less important knock than a 400 in a dead rubber, dead test, on a flat pitch against a competent side.

[bharat297]

Which one of the Ind-Pak, Ind-Eng'06 series was brilliant ? And if you recall he wasnt injured until the ODI series was just about begin against England. Pedantics aside, u still havent answered my qn. What is your success metric. Lay it down in numbers on a series by series basis, so we dont have any ambiguity come March next year!

Now I am confused ... when I said he had a poor patch you respond by saying which one of the series was brilliant? Please explain this. Ok about the success metric, I would be more interested to see the type of series that he has rather than just a simple number. I could have put a success metric before the 2003/04 series against Aus and say he must average 50+. Well he averaged 76.8 and I would say he didnt have his best series. He averaged higher in the 2003/04 series against Aus than he did in the 1999/00 series against Aus but in 2003/04 it was due to one spectacular match in which he scored 301 unbeaten runs, whereas in 1999/00 it was a much more dominant series.

[Bumper]

Blah Blah Blah! Inability to provide a simple success metric suggests to me that you guys dont believe in SRT's ability to back your numbers. Is an avg of 40 too big to ask for ? If you are hesitant to give specific numbers, how about commiting to no. of 100s & no. of 50s ? U cant just leave it as murky as possble & come back and have the same debate three months later. I want this 'backing SRT because he is a great player' nonsense to end. There has to be a certain criteria for success & he must meet them.

[The Outsider]

There has to be a certain criteria for success & he must meet them.

That his 91 and 83 instrumental in winning us our most recent test series outside the subcontinent did not have an influence in your point of view leads me to think it's a futile cause.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

That his 91 and 83 instrumental in winning us our most recent test series outside the subcontinent did not have an influence in your point of view leads me to think it's a futile cause.

And how can commiting to an average of 40 & having SRT quantitatively beat the numbers be a futile cause ?:haha: The fact that two years of mediocrity hasnt convinced you guys, leads me to think its a futile exercise asking you guys to commit to numbers. But still need them written down, so there is no ambiguity come Spring next year.

[Bumper]

Yeah the glorious 82 & 91, when everyone made runs! Good knocks, but by no means worth backing a player for 2 mediocre years. I repeat, if SRT had played a significant innings in Durban or Capetown & helped us make history that would have been worth backing him for.

[The Outsider]

Yeah the glorious 82 & 91' date=' when everyone made runs! Good knocks, but by no means worth backing a player for 2 mediocre years. I repeat, if SRT had played a significant innings in Durban or Capetown & helped us make history that would have been worth backing him for.[/quote'] That his pivotal innings at Johannesburg and Nottingham did not make you believe that he is worth backing makes me think that new excuses would have been found for what in hindsight were failures.

[bharat297]

Yeah the glorious 82 & 91' date=' when everyone made runs! Good knocks, but by no means worth backing a player for 2 mediocre years. I repeat, if SRT had played a significant innings in Durban or Capetown & helped us make history that would have been worth backing him for.[/quote'] I already responded to this ... that saying everyone else made runs is stupid because most of the people that made runs in those matches were people batting after Sachin. The openers got them off to a good start but Sachin took the game from a position where it was balanced or maybe slightly in Indias favour to a position of total dominance. Saying Kumble made runs therefore sachins dont mean as much is stupid because Kumble made his runs when India were 6/440 or something ... a total that Sachin helped build. Secondly, I already countered this view that he had 2 mediocre years by saying that really he had 1 mediocre year which was 2006. In 2005 he batted pretty good, averaged 44 for that year. In 2007 he is returning back into form. His only really bad patch was a period of 6-7 months between Nov 2005 and May 2006