Hmm.
Thank Christ. I was beginning to feel I was one of the few members who actually thought about it.
But regardless of why someone is doing bad, it still has no effect on the bottom line: scoring runs. Miles or not, he obviously still has to score runs to be in the team. We may disagree on why he is out of form or is no longer good, but I don't think anyone disagrees on the fact that:
I think the only reason they are related in this debate is that people take scoring runs in this era as a given. Tendulkar, being the classy batsman he is, is a prime example to refute such a generalisation. Yet, when people use this example, the opposing side quickly talk of mileage. The original point was that if Ponting's 'greatness' can be demeaned because of the current conditions, then Tendulkar's poor form currently exacerbates it because of the same conditions.
Debut dates tell you only so much. But don't let that retardedness stand in your way.
Err no. Tendulkar has over 100+ ODIs than Lara and more tests than Lara too.
No, the argument makes perfect sense and i'd ask you to talk this over with a doctor if you know any to drill some sense into your head.
Yes. And almost all sportsmen start doing international duty regularly around the age of 21-22. Not 16.
Ofcourse he isn't batting well !
No, he didn't become a regular only 4-5 years after. That would be like him starting when Ponting debuted. When Lara actually played about 31 tests (only 7 less than Sachin) before Ponting arrived. Let us say he became a regular 2 years after Sachin. It still doesn't matter, they played pretty much the same amount of tests overall.
Yes, but it doesn't really effect a 28 year old, let alone a 25 year old.
No, it makes 0 sense. I already gave you an example of someone who debuted at age 16 who was still in his prime at age 30 (2 years after Sachin started dipping). Which was Pele, and that's football, which is far more taxing on the body than Cricket. We're also talking about a career in which Pele played 1000+ matches.
Er, no they don't. A lot of footballers actually debut at 18, if not younger in few cases, and none of them are done by age 28. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find sportsmen who have run out of steam at age 28. It's simply not the case, that's the age of your peak.
Yeh, mileage plays a part. But he is playing crappy - imagine if the bowling and pitch conditions didn't help him out. Whew, would have been even worse eh?
Math skills getting a bit wonky ? Tendulkar debuted in 1989. Ponting in 1996.
Let us not. Because it is falsehood. He debuted two years after Tendulkar. Didnt become a regular a couple of years after THAT.
How predictable. You know more than Gretsky about how to judge a sportsman, you obviously know more than doctors on such issues.
You = total ****** if you think running around a field for 90 minutes is more taxing mentally and physically than playing cricket for the whole freaking day.
You obviously know squat about soccer if you think a lot of footballers make their international debut at 18.
Yeah, 100+ more ODIs matter diddly squat to you obviously.
But Lara started at a much more mature physical stage, and hasn't the expections of a billion people on him.
I don't know if you're just not that bright or you're purposely misleading people.
Again, you're either running out of IQ or you're purposely misleading.
What does Gretsky say about it? So far, what he's said has actually gone against the very points you've been arguing. But you're that bright you keep sourcing someone like that.
You = a total ****** because you keep spouting non-sense as fact. It is physically more taxing playing a game of constant running. You don't see Boons, Hughes, or Ranatunga's in football. Especially in Pele's time where there were no yellow/red cards - or used hardly ever - you usually dealt with injury more often. Which is actually the reason why he couldnt continue at the 62 world cup.
Ok, let me make a list:
No, they mean something, but to say at age 28 that he's done? That's beyond stupid. He's been crap, you have to hack it and let it go.Yeah, 100+ more ODIs matter diddly squat to you obviously.
Yes, and Lara has no pressure on him at all.
And that makes it SIX years if you can count. So 4 years after Tendulkar != the same time as Ponting debuted. Need an abacus or a calculator to check that out ??
Lara didnt become a regular in Tests till 1993. That is four years from 1989.
Err...no. Gretsky says exactly the same thing i said - how good you are is judged based on how well you do against the best of the best, not simply by bashing substandard opposition.
False. a sixteen year old is inadequate physically compared to a 21 year old and that is a basic fact of life.
Except it is not constant running. Nobody ever runs continously for 90 minutes on a soccer pitch- try half that number. A cricket fielder runs on average far more than a footy player given that he is on the field for 5-6 HOURS and not 90 minutes.
Pele HIMSELF said his best football came before the age of 27. You obviously know more about Pele's prime than Pele himself i guess.
And of all those who have hit 30 ( Ronaldinho hasn't), they were clearly jaded compared to their past standards. And lets not bring up no-namers like Kewell or Gerrard, who arnt even regular for almost two decades.
And he is still far past his PEAK, when he was scoring nearly 40 goals in less than 40 games.
So doctors who say it is perfectly expected of Tendulkar to be burnt out by 28 are wrong.
when it comes to you, stupidity seems to have no bounds.
You said that Lara debuted later than he did and mentioned he wasn't a regular till after 3-4 years. That's hitting on Ponting range mate.
The end of 89. And Lara was playing one day internationals before and tests before 93 - in 92.
Yeah, Tendulkar has actually done as little or as much of that as Lara. And again, as this thread pertains to Hayden, he's already smashed the #1 ODI side for the fastest WC hundred.
Actually, not false. You cut the posts to tidbits you can reply to and ignore the post as whole because you can't refute it. At maximum Sachin was pressured for 2 years. He wasn't 16 for 5 years then suddenly turned 21. It still doesn't add up to his form from 28+. You can cry as loud as you like.
You obviously have not played football, and definitely not any level higher than playing in the park with your cousins.
Uh, you are exactly proving my point...
I said he was good between 16 - 30. He said he peaked 27, which is pretty much what I've been saying.Kewell and Gerrard are no namers? They got awards for the very thing we're discussing here (peaking early). Try the Premier league's young player of the year award
.You just proved you no jack-all about football. Ronaldo scored only once 40 goals in a season. And guess what, no one has EVER done that in the primera division regardless of age. It's like averaging 150 runs for a year. But scoring 20 goals a season is like averaging 75 runs a year. So he is far from dipping or out of form
.Fact is, you don't know much, you keep rambling on, you keep making non-sense posts. Made up facts, shotty generalisations and you keep quoting Gretsky as if he is an authority or he backs up what you're saying (in which he actually doesn't).
You're right mate. I am a ******, if just for trying to hammer some sense into C_C.Pretty much.
