Tendulkar at his peak

[sensible-indian]

not sure what response you want .. you gave a stat about sachins average in our wins when he had a good team.. i put it mildly that "average in wins" is not that useful by comparing it with inzis stats .. i thought of giving misbahs stats when chasing in won gamesin ODIs , but felt its insulting for sachin

You said SRT was not impactful like Ponting or Sehwag. I am saying it looked that cos when he was in his peak, he didn't have a team for his runs to look impactful. When he had a good team, his runs became impactful. That's why I provided the stat (for comparative analysis). Not because that stat is a yardstick to judge great batsmen.

[velu]

You said SRT was not impactful like Ponting or Sehwag. I am saying it looked that cos when he was in his peak, he didn't have a team for his runs to look impactful. When he had a good team, his runs became impactful. That's why I provided the stat (for comparative analysis). Not because that stat is a yardstick to judge great batsmen.

i beg to disagree .. as a test player sachin had less impact .. surely sachin has got few innings but it doesnt do any justification wisdom top 100 innings is a very good example to prove my point if you believe in it .. take sehwags test series in lanka where he massacred the likes of mendis and murali.. we lost the series , but kind of memories sehwag left behind ll stay forverr.. and you are mixing impact with winning runs .. sachin's desert storm .. his wc exploits are good example of his impact in ODIs sadly samethng cant be said about his test carrie

[KFC_Zinger]

one of the problems with having a 24 year career is that some people think they are qualified to comment just because they witnessed the 2nd half of it.

True

[KFC_Zinger]

True, I don't think any of current batsmen could hit centuries at Perth and Nottingham against international bowlers before finishing their 12th grade..... Not even a single batsman.... That guy played All of All time great bowlers before he turned 20 in a era where bowlers dominated...

[sensible-indian]

i beg to disagree .. as a test player sachin had less impact .. surely sachin has got few innings but it doesnt do any justification wisdom top 100 innings is a very good example to prove my point if you believe in it .. take sehwags test series in lanka where he massacred the likes of mendis and murali.. we lost the series , but kind of memories sehwag left behind ll stay forverr.. and you are mixing impact with winning runs .. sachin's desert storm .. his wc exploits are good example of his impact in ODIs sadly samethng cant be said about his test carrie

He didn't have 500 run series I agree. That's a valid criticism. Destroying someone in 1 series and going missing for many isn't impact. That's a weird way to look at it. It was just impactful for that series but not overall. He didn't blow away any teams in 1 series (500, 600, 700 run series) though he had tons of several good series. Was Man Of The Series against Aus both at home and away. You can't get those stuff by scoring soft runs. What do you call the 2010 SA series? 2 centuries in 3 games to setup a SA away series win. If that is not impact, what can I say bro? He wasn't as impactful as Lara or Ponting in their peak I do agree. Or Sehwag in SC.

[putrevus]

Oh cmon man people bring up 5-6 matches here and then some 15 balls to indicate god knows what - am sure his 157 test old career section can be showcased as well - also the OP didn't indulge even in the remotest of hyperbole.

At the peak of their ability, Lara will be ahead of Tendulkar just due to his ability to score huge and as far as peak years Ponting's three or four years are unmatched by either Lara or Sachin. Both of them are ATGs just like Sachin. Recently due to their late career renaissance both Kallis and Sanga also enter into that conversation.

[velu]

He didn't have 500 run series I agree. That's a valid criticism. Destroying someone in 1 series and going missing for many isn't impact. That's a weird way to look at it. It was just impactful for that series but not overall. He didn't blow away any teams in 1 series (500, 600, 700 run series) though he had tons of several good series. Was Man Of The Series against Aus both at home and away. You can't get those stuff by scoring soft runs. What do you call the 2010 SA series? 2 centuries in 3 games to setup a SA away series win. If that is not impact, what can I say bro? He wasn't as impactful as Lara or Ponting in their peak I do agree. Or Sehwag in SC.

i never said he had zero impact .. when compared with other legands he had lesser impact .. when hayden or ponting is facing our bowlers , i wont follow the match :--D i cant say the samethng about sachin in tests .. even sehwag had simialr or even biger impact than ponting or lara .. if you have time go thru some match threads in parosi forum .. when sehwag is there at the crease , literally everyone will be in a hopless state praying divine intervention :--D

[sensible-indian]

i never said he had zero impact .. when compared with other legands he had lesser impact .. when hayden or ponting is facing our bowlers , i wont follow the match :--D i cant say the samethng about sachin in tests .. even sehwag had simialr or even biger impact than ponting or lara .. if you have time go thru some match threads in parosi forum .. when sehwag is there at the crease , literally everyone will be in a hopless state praying divine intervention :--D

I get your point. SRT wouldn't blow away oppositions like Sehwag, Ponting and Lara. He would remain solid and steady in tests. Come what may. Sehwag was a storm in SC. But the same Sehwag was helpless in certain countries. Ponting and Lara at their best were more impactful BUT....they have have gone through many periods where they had no impact. In SRT's case, such periods were very very less. One being during his tennis elbow period. As someone else commented, SRT is not the greatest ever in any specific thing but he is near the top in almost every specific thing (both tests and ODI). That is something that no other batsman in the history of the game can have a claim to. If you put these 3 in good teams and compare the final results, I think SRT's impact on game results would be a LOT more. So it all depends on your definition of impact. Peak impact or overall impact. As for aggressiveness, yeah Ponting, Lara and Sehwag were in general more aggressive Test batsmen.

[sweetaskandy]

Yes I am aware of it. Inzi had great bowlers and he was the main guy. When he clicked, Pak won. Hence great average in wins. When SRT clicked and when India had a decent bowling attack, India won. Hence great average in wins. When SRT was in his peak, India never had the bowlers to get those wins. By the way, I don't think average in wins is a good yardstick. I have said this countless times in the past. Since you said SRT had no impact I am mentioning it. He never had the team for the impact to show. When he had it, he got great results.

Ave in wins is a widely used benchmark. Sachin was a great player but didn't close the show like he should do. This is certainly why others rate above him - esp Lara (won matches on his own) and Ponting.

[Muloghonto]

How is it silly just because he was sixteen , his wicket counted as half to the bowlers, He was selected to play at 16 because they thought he was good enough to play for weak and rebuilding team.He justified his selection and faith. Similar in last few year from 2011 till his retirement he was just awful. We don't know what motivated him to continue.

1. Its a silly argument because you said no one forced him to play at 16, when its clear that he was selected at 16 and nobody ever says 'no don't select me, i am not ready/i am a political pick'. And playing at 16 would obviously have a negative impact on his overall record. Obviously, he justified his selection but being good enough to play in the national team and being a beast in numbers are two different things, especially in the 80s, where a 35ish batting average was considered good enough to play. 2. What motivated him to keep playing ? Well, Tendulkar doesn't play to amuse us, he played to please himself- all sportsmen do. As such, sportsmen tend to retire when they are not having fun anymore or have something else to do with their lives.But trust me, very, very few sportsmen go 'gosh, i should retire because my numbers are suffering and my fans will be pissed'. Its important to realize that and i don't begrudge him that at all- i would probably do the same (keep playing if i could, regardless of how bad my numbers are) and so would probably 99.99% people here.

He is an ATG batsman but he is no Bradman who stood above and beyond his peers especially in tests. From 1994 to 2000 he was the best batsman who played for a very weak team especially when playing overseas but at no point in those overseas series even at his peak he produced Bradmanesque series or innings

I think when you go around averaging nearly 60 for 250+ innings at a stretch, it is a bradmansque performance.

Yes he had very high average and he was utterly consistent while never being dominant in any one single series where he produced ton of runs even for weak team. Lara in 2001 series against Srilanka scored more than 600 runs in 3 match series with three hundreds where WI lost series 0-3 . Tendulkar never had those type of series. Didn't Kohli scored four hundreds in recent series and scored more than 600 runs in 4 match series. At some point in a career of great batsman they just need to be more than being consistent, they just have to produce extraordinary. Tendulkar was a great batsmen who was ultra consistent. For latter half his career he had one of the most formidable batting lineups backing him.Indian batting lineups always were good at home for most part of his career.

Tendulkar produced more extraordinary innings than any batsman- he just didn't put 3-4 of them together in a short span of a series like most batsmen do. And that adds to his value, not subtracts from it. From a team perspective, you want a guy who can score 55-60 average with 1 century and 2 fifties every 5-6 innings for decades, over the guy who scores 800 runs in one series and 100 in another. Thats what made Lara unreliable- yes, scoring 3 centuries and 3 fifties in one 10 innings series and 1 fifty the next 10 innings series has the same 'overall consistency' as the guy who scores 2 centuries and 2 fifties in each of those series, but in real terms, its less consistent. reliability is the single greatest asset of any sportsman and no one was more reliable than Tendulkar because he literally had so few bad series in that 18 year stretch. Besides, its been pointed out that Tendulkar rarely had the opportunity to score humongous runs in a series, given that India rarely played more than 3 tests for most of his peak. Tendulkar debuted in a 5 test series in 89 and the next time he played a 4 test series, IIRC, was in 96 against the west indies.

[sensible-indian]

Ave in wins is a widely used benchmark. Sachin was a great player but didn't close the show like he should do. This is certainly why others rate above him - esp Lara (won matches on his own) and Ponting.

Its a flawed stats cos it is dependent on team. Anyhoo Lara's average in wins - 61.03 SRT's average in wins - 61.93 Ponting's average in wins - 59.46 Links http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;result=1;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;result=1;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;result=1;template=results;type=allround :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Inzi's has the highest average in wins next to Bradman. 78. I guess he is the greatest ever batsman post Bradman.

[sweetaskandy]

^ That is Sobers, Viv and then probably Sanga. But Inzi was obviously a match winning batsman. You can't ave 78 in wins given a fair number of wins and the time span he played.

[sensible-indian]

Ponting is lesser cos even he flopped, others in his team would score and pick wickets and it would be a won match. Inzi's is super high cos he is the main bat and when he clicked, their ATG bowlers would win it for them. When he flopped, usually his team loses so it won't affect his average in wins like Ponting. SRT didn't have ATG bowlers hence tons of his centuries went to waste. You don't have to look beyond 2010 when Indian bowlers messed up a easy SA away series win when the score was 1-1. If SRT was an Australian or Pakistani, those runs would have been counted in average in wins. Now you see why this is a flawed stat? Just because many use it doesn't make it right.

[sensible-indian]

^ That is Sobers, Viv and then probably Sanga. But Inzi was obviously a match winning batsman. You can't ave 78 in wins given a fair number of wins and the time span he played.

Inzi is a great match winner but not better than SRT, Lara or Ponting.

[sweetaskandy]

Inzi is a great match winner but not better than SRT' date=' Lara or Ponting.[/quote'] Never said he was.

[sensible-indian]

Never said he was.

Yes...I posted the stat of Inzi to show that you can't use average in wins as a yardstick to make any comparison as it would throw erroneous results. Inzi was very important for Pak and it showed.

[sweetaskandy]

Truth be told the time since 2000 is the only time India haven't been pretty rubbish. It had a golden era from 2000 for a while. Back to normal in tests now. Yes, I feel for Sachin as a result - but the record is there.

[sensible-indian]

What to do. What to do. :(( Hope our young guns and new bowlers help us make a very good Test team again.

[Muloghonto]

Ave in wins is a widely used benchmark. Sachin was a great player but didn't close the show like he should do. This is certainly why others rate above him - esp Lara (won matches on his own) and Ponting.

Err no, it isn't used as a benchmark at all for batsmen in test matches. But then again, kids who have been following cricket since cricinfo came out (and pretend to be older) don't know any better. Batsmen don't win test matches, bowlers do. You win by taking 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. Not by scoring more runs. So how is average in wins/loss/draws a relevant benchmark to batsmen ? A batsman can do amazing things, the match may still end in a draw or a loss. It makes no sense to retroactively judge a performance based on what happened later (i.e., bowling aspect) Lara didn't win matches on his own, Ambrose and Walsh won matches on their own- which is why Lara made more runs since 2002 than at any point in his career and won very little since then, after the last great West Indian fast bowlers retired.

[Muloghonto]

^ That is Sobers, Viv and then probably Sanga. But Inzi was obviously a match winning batsman. You can't ave 78 in wins given a fair number of wins and the time span he played.

Its debatable if Sanga is a better test batsman than Kallis, Dravid or Miandad. He does not belong in the top elite level where Tendulkar, Lara, Viv, Gavaskar etc. are. Inzi is not a matchwinning batsman - Tendy has won way, way more ODIs on his own than Inzy has. And as i noted above, there is no such thing as a matchwinning batsman in test cricket. Anybody with half a brain will know that a decent batsman in a great bowling team will ALWAYS have better numbers in wins than a better batsman in a crap bowling team.