Tendulkar autobiography

[JaFanatic]

How many 100s did SRT score in his last 20 Tests?

Lol is it your comeback ? :hysterical:

[Texan]

Here you go http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=3118727&postcount=80 I do read the username T-E-X-A-N correct me if I'm wrong

And where did I say Aussies give preference to seniority? Do you need some prescription lens?

[Precambrian]

3. If I am not mistaken, Ponting was still getting 100s till the year he retired. I think he also played a crucial role in a 4th innings chase in SA which Aus eventually won by 2 wickets. I don't think SRT got a single 100 in the last 3 years of his Test career.

He scored a total of 8 hundreds from 59 tests he played during these 6 years dude. 8 100s in nearly 60 matches translate as "great" now? Oh dear! It is really "dire straits" when you are justifying the selection of a player for six years by pointing out that he made a 50 in a test match?

[Precambrian]

And where did I say Aussies give preference to seniority? Do you need some prescription lens?

You didn't. You said the opposite and tried to say Aussies gave importance to performance or something like that. Which we proved you wrong with the case of Rogers over Hughes and Ponting's 6 year continued selection despite being jackshit.

All of us saw how the so-called senior players got complacent towards the end of their careers and hung on to their places despite abysmal performances, including the great SRT. What Chappell was perhaps trying to do was to have merit-based selection rather than this senior player / junior player divide. Aussies don't give a rat's @$$ about seniority. All they care about is putting the best eleven on the field.

[JaFanatic]

And where did I say Aussies give preference to seniority? Do you need some prescription lens?

No thanx! Where did I say you said they give preference to seniority ? maybe you need prescription for amnesia ? :dontknow:

[JaFanatic]

Mr.Texan you're seriously affected by amnesia due to your blunt hate towards Sachin

[-Robin-]

Meanwhile Dravid refused Ganguly's claims

[Precambrian]

Rahane was responsible for the sole win we had in the series. Look at his performance on all away tours so far. You think that is not good??? Rohit played only one Test. Sure, you can say he averaged only 17. Andy Ganteaume averages 112, yes more than Bradman!

No mate, if anyone was responsible it was Ishant sharma, the same guy whom you derided a few posts earlier, who delivered that win. Your second paragraph directly contradicts your first. In case of Rohit you say you cannot judge one player by just one match, but in the first paragraph this is exactly what you are doing.

[Texan]

He scored a total of 8 hundreds from 59 tests he played during these 6 years dude. 8 100s in nearly 60 matches translate as "great" now? Oh dear! It is really "dire straits" when you are justifying the selection of a player for six years by pointing out that he made a 50 in a test match?

He made a double hundred in the year that he finished playing cricket. I think you are deviating from the point I am making here. We can debate all of today, tomorrow, rest of the year and rest of our lives whether SRT deserved a place in the side in his last few years, whether Ponting is a FTB and whether Harbhajan was a glorified dart thrower. The point of the thread is not that. Chappell it seems (at least from reading news reports) wanted to instill merit-based selection instead of seniority determining selection. I do feel that our current selection policy gives too much emphasis on seniority and not enough on merit. You may or may not agree with that.

[Precambrian]

I find it laughably dire when Ponting's 6 year continued selection is justified by one 50 plus score in a test match win. Dude, Tendulkar also scored a 50 in his last match which India won. So by that warped logic, Tendulkar was good for atleast one more year?

[-Robin-]

He made a double hundred in the year that he finished playing cricket. I think you are deviating from the point I am making here. We can debate all of today, tomorrow, rest of the year and rest of our lives whether SRT deserved a place in the side in his last few years, whether Ponting is a FTB and whether Harbhajan was a glorified dart thrower. The point of the thread is not that. Chappell it seems (at least from reading news reports) wanted to instill merit-based selection instead of seniority determining selection. I do feel that our current selection policy gives too much emphasis on seniority and not enough on merit. You may or may not agree with that.

i wonder why seniors like Yuvi, Viru, Gauti, Zakk not getting selections anymore

[Texan]

Don't do what?

seniority preference

Mr.Texan you're seriously affected by amnesia due to your blunt hate towards Sachin

Munna, purane posts edit karne ki bahut boori aadat lag gayi hai tujhe. Lagta hai tu sochta kuch aur hai aur type kuch aur hi karta hai.

[Precambrian]

He made a double hundred in the year that he finished playing cricket.

So Ponting was persited with for five years so that he can deliver a double century in the sixth year?IWonder how many players would get that sort of VIP free run in the team? Put an infinite number of monkeys in a room with infinite number of type writers for an infinite period of time and they'll type out the complete works of Shakespear.

I think you are deviating from the point I am making here. We can debate all of today, tomorrow, rest of the year and rest of our lives whether SRT deserved a place in the side in his last few years, whether Ponting is a FTB and whether Harbhajan was a glorified dart thrower. The point of the thread is not that. Chappell it seems (at least from reading news reports) wanted to instill merit-based selection instead of seniority determining selection. I do feel that our current selection policy gives too much emphasis on seniority and not enough on merit. You may or may not agree with that.

Explain "merit-based" selection please. He wanted Yuvraj Singh to replace Laxman in test matches.. Can you kindly tell me how Yuvraj qualifies as more "meritorious" than laxman?

[Precambrian]

People talking about Chappell going for 'merit based selection' is just missing the big point. His job is that of a coach. Not selector. Not captain. His job is to work with the players given to him. Not determine whom he want to work with. He had no business determining who should captain either. He essentially tried to convert whole team India into a dictatorship where he could literally choose to what he wanted and treat players like school kids who would do bidding of his majesty. The same thing happened to Australia as well in the form of Mickey Arthur who wanted to impose his superiority on the players. And what happened afterwards? He was booted out.

[Texan]

No mate' date= if anyone was responsible it was Ishant sharma, the same guy whom you derided a few posts earlier, who delivered that win. So scoring a 100 in an innings when no other batsman got more than 36 does not count as contribution for winning the Test. I see. I have nothing to add. You can live with that impression for the rest of your life. First para talks about Rahane's performance on all away tours. Have you looked at them? Do you still think they aren't good???

[JaFanatic]

Munna' date=' purane posts edit karne ki bahut boori aadat lag gayi hai tujhe. Lagta hai tu sochta kuch aur hai aur type kuch aur hi karta hai.[/quote'] Sorry, it was a mistake! but even going by that post it was clear I said that according to you "they dont do selection based on seniority" or seniority preferance

[Texan]

Sorry' date=' it was a mistake! but even going by that post it was clear I said that according to you "they dont do selection based on seniority" or seniority preferance[/quote'] I see you have edited many posts in the last few pages already. Good job.... but remember, it still leaves a trail :winky:

[Precambrian]

So scoring a 100 in an innings when no other batsman got more than 36 does not count as contribution for winning the Test. I see. I have nothing to add. You can live with that impression for the rest of your life.

And that one innings justifies all his other failures in the test series? Is that how it works? One innings of awesomeness followed by 9 innings of mediocrity is acceptable to you?

First para talks about Rahane's performance on all away tours. Have you looked at them? Do you still think they aren't good???

And the seniors have awesome away tours to show as well, not A tours but test match tours. Mate we can play this game all day along.

[Texan]

People talking about Chappell going for 'merit based selection' is just missing the big point. His job is that of a coach. Not selector. Not captain. His job is to work with the players given to him. Not determine whom he want to work with. He had no business determining who should captain either. He essentially tried to convert whole team India into a dictatorship where he could literally choose to what he wanted and treat players like school kids who would do bidding of his majesty. The same thing happened to Australia as well in the form of Mickey Arthur who wanted to impose his superiority on the players. And what happened afterwards? He was booted out.

Okay. You think that a coach should be a glorified ball thrower for catching practice (like what Duncan Fletcher seems to have been reduced to now). I feel that the coach should have responsibility for the overall team performance (including selection matters). You can leave it at that or keep questioning "why Mr X should be picked ahead of Mr Y"

[JaFanatic]

I see you have edited many posts in the last few pages already. Good job.... but remember' date=' it still leaves a trail :winky:[/quote'] I edited two posts in this thread and that's what Mr.Texan wants to discuss now :hmmmm2: yup once you run out of reasons and answers anything to deviate the topic :two_thumbs_up: