Tendulkar at his peak

[putrevus]

1. Its a silly argument because you said no one forced him to play at 16' date=' 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..[/quote'] I said nobody forced him since you conveniently omitted his first part and last part his career. I don't care about his numbers and have never cared about them unless it helped India win, regarding his retirement he choose to retire way past his prime ending up with lesser stats.So when you take his whole career into account you need to include them as well.Those stats were from his bat not anyone else. It is not certainly anyone's place to question why he started at 16 and finished at 40.Someone one wanted him to play so he played and he had every right to play but when he choose do that people can discuss about those stats. He was bradmansque against Bangladesh though. A century scored in dead fourth innings certainly boost a player's average but does very little to a team cause in winning or losing or even drawing it. You are talking as if Lara was some chop liver and nothing batsmen Sachin had 35 one more hundred than Lara's 34 after 131 tests and Lara had 48 50s compared Sachin's 41. He was reliable nobody can deny that fact. Sachin was a compiler of stats.

[Muloghonto]

I said nobody forced him since you conveniently omitted his first part and last part his career

As i noted, if you are 16 and you get selected to the national team, are you going to say 'no, i am not ready' ? if not, how is it then not being 'forced' ?

I don't care about his numbers and have never cared about them unless it helped India win, regarding his retirement he choose to retire way past his prime ending up with lesser stats.So when you take his whole career into account you need to include them as well.Those stats were from his bat not anyone else.

As i said, if i am the greatest batsman in the world by a light year but i choose to play till i am 60 , scoring 15-20 runs (because i wanna play) and my team doesn't mind it, it doesn't make me a lesser player. If Viv Richards played another 5 years, averaged 25 over another 20 tests and ended up with a less than 50 career average, it wouldn't make him a lesser batsman. Playing past your prime makes your numbers go down, but it doesn't make you a lesser player for the relevant part of your career.

It is not certainly anyone's place to question why he started at 16 and finished at 40.Someone one wanted him to play so he played and he had every right to play but when he choose do that people can discuss about those stats.

Sure, but to use stats of a 40 year old man in a sport where 35-36 is the retirement age and hold it against him, is illogical.

He was bradmansque against Bangladesh though.

Lots of people were. I can't think of anyone else though who averaged 40+ against everyone over a 100 test span, in every nation, let alone 150+. Thats what makes him bradmansque- no, Tendulkar-esque, because not even Bradman had those kind of numbers.

A century scored in dead fourth innings certainly boost a player's average but does very little to a team cause in winning or losing or even drawing it. You are talking as if Lara was some chop liver and nothing batsmen Sachin had 35 one more hundred than Lara's 34 after 131 tests and Lara had 48 50s compared Sachin's 41. He was reliable nobody can deny that fact. Sachin was a compiler of stats.

Lara had way, way more innings in 131 tests than Sachin. Lara is an ATG and the clear 2nd best of the last 30 years, after Sachin.

[MCGGG]

Jason Gillespie averaged over 200 for one innings. Seriously though those are some freakish numbers from Tendulkar, definately an ATG.

[sensible-indian]

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.

Inzi WAS a match winner. Its hard to be a batsman in a team where no one steps up most of the times. You can't give credit to SRT for 90s and snatch away the credit from Inzi. He may not have balanced records as much as ATGs but he sure was a great match winner in tests. No need to compare him with others but calling him not a match winner is simply harsh and unfair.

[BlueBee]

Don >>>> Daylight >>>> Sachin No comparison whatsoever.

[Sachin=GOD]

Don >>>> Daylight >>>> Sachin No comparison whatsoever.

Kids :headshake:

[Roshanrocks]

194 posts alreadys... Tendulkar's strike rate in ICF is legendary :hatsoff:

[Sachin=GOD]

194 posts alreadys... Tendulkar's strike rate in ICF is legendary :hatsoff:

194.....won't be surprised if a Dravid fan now locks the thread :P

[Precambrian]

Ah feck. Who cares about these nitty gritty stats in the end? I was watching Sachin 200 yesterday. Sachin despatched a leg stump full toss to fine leg fence. Steyn was angry and steamed in for the next. As if knowing Steyn's mind, Sachin took a step towards the offside, head held still, the delivery was an overpitched, almost yorker length outside off stump, and despatched it to the square leg fence. The world's best bowler had been bested. And we try to reduce these moments to mere stats. Lol.

[akshayxyz]

194.....won't be surprised if a Dravid fan now locks the thread :P

:haha::haha: same old boring arguments. :asleep:

[Muloghonto]

Inzi WAS a match winner. Its hard to be a batsman in a team where no one steps up most of the times. You can't give credit to SRT for 90s and snatch away the credit from Inzi. He may not have balanced records as much as ATGs but he sure was a great match winner in tests. No need to compare him with others but calling him not a match winner is simply harsh and unfair.

As I said, the notion of a matchwinning batsman only applies to limited overs cricket. Its ridiculous idea in tests because batsmen dont win tests, bowlers do. Simply scoring more runs than the opposition will not win you tests, so therefore theres no such thing as a matchwinning test batsman. As far as odis go, inzy was nowhere as good at winning matches as tendulkar. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[sensible-indian]

As I said' date= the notion of a matchwinning batsman only applies to limited overs cricket. Its ridiculous idea in tests because batsmen dont win tests, bowlers do. Simply scoring more runs than the opposition will not win you tests, so therefore theres no such thing as a matchwinning test batsman. As far as odis go, inzy was nowhere as good at winning matches as tendulkar. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Yes it does. Dravid's crucial knock in Adelaide was match winning. Laxman's 281 in Kolkata was match winning. SRT's 100 in Chennai in 4th innings was match winning. Of course, if bowler mess it up, batsmen can't be faulted but batsmen taking the team to safety in a tricky chase or setting up a big score to put the opposition under pressure are match winning test batsman.

[amiret]

Tendulkar at his peak was, is and always will be vastly superior to all batsmen of the Past , present and future. At his peak he was better than all the other Tendulkars at their peaks in all the other parallel universes.

[Muloghonto]

Yes it does. Dravid's crucial knock in Adelaide was match winning. Laxman's 281 in Kolkata was match winning. SRT's 100 in Chennai in 4th innings was match winning. Of course, if bowler mess it up, batsmen can't be faulted but batsmen taking the team to safety in a tricky chase or setting up a big score to put the opposition under pressure are match winning test batsman.

Yes, but its a metric that cannot be measured, same as who is a better catcher (coz we dont catalouge how many chances were dropped, whether it was a real chance, half chance etc) because batsmen can set up a big total and if the bowlers don't deliver, then the match ends in a draw/loss and it wasn't a matchwinning effort. Matchwinning effort means exactly that- your effort won the match. If you are a bowler, you put in a 15-5-25-8 kind of return, it is directly matchwinning. You took 20 wickets at a lower average than the opposition bowlers thus you CLEARLY won the match. Batsmen in Tests cannot do that, so its not a metric that can be applied to batsmen. All those knocks you mention, are amazing, excellent knocks but not matchwinning. Because matches were won by the bowling unit. Theres a bazillion brilliant innings by Tendulkar that if he had Walsh & Ambrose or Wasim & Waqar in his side, would've been in victories, but instead are mostly in draws or losses. So how do you measure matchwinningness of a batsman like tendulkar vs Lara or Inzamam, who had the bowling attack and were basically in a position of 'if Lara/Inzy score--> total is 250-300-->enough runs for Walsh&Ambrose/Wasim & Waqar to take 10 wickets for less than 250-300 to win matches' ?!?