The Master is at the pinnacle!

[Precambrian]

Yep. No doubt about how Sachin promised that he will never get out to Hogg again, and lived it in Australia.

 

[Precambrian]

Indian players didnt give him the Guard of Honor, did they?

 

[Uppercut]

If 'by this date three years ago' you mean 17th October, 2005, then it's 29 matches, 1893 runs@42.6 which is very decent by any standard (not by his standard of course)...

Sorry should've mentioned- as always, i don't count matches with Bangladesh in any stats.

 

[tooextracool]

In ODIs, if you bowl as accurately as he does you don't need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries - you get batsmen to gift wickets because they can't simply hang around scoring at 2.5-an-over for too long. Nor do you have to bowl at even 80mph (which Pollock always retained the capability to do) to bowl wicket-taking deliveries, but that's by-the-by.

Economy-rate is so much more important in ODIs than bowling wicket-taking deliveries, and Pollock in the modern era is the best there's ever been at this. At least, outside the slog overs. Taking into account bowling both 1-40 and 41-50, Wasim Akram was indeed his superior.

And as far as Pollock's wicket-taking deterioration was concerned, well... in 2007/08 he didn't take that many wickets (10 in 13 matches) but he'd had spells like that before in his career.

Until 2004, Pollock hadnt had a single calendar year where he had averaged over 30. After that he had 3 and 2007 was arguably his worst in terms of wicket taking. Whether you rate economy rate or wicket-taking as a more important contribution to ODI cricket,it is obvious that both of them matter in the context of ODI cricket and the pollock post 2003 had declined significantly in that sense.

However, I do believe that SA made a big mistake by essentially forcing him to retire. There isnt much doubt in my mind that he was still easily the best ODI bowler in the side when he retired and his lower order batting was invaluable to the side. If anything, SA definetly missed having an enforcer like Pollock come in and bowl 10 tight overs against England, and I think that is definetly likely to hurt them in the future.Is Pollock SA's best ever ODI cricketer? Easily IMO. However, I am also strange enough to believe that Jonty Rhodes is probably their number 2 ODI cricketer.

 

[Furball]

Not sure what the status is on giving people from other countries knighthoods ect, but if he was English and had made the same achievements, I'd be certain that he would get one.

Viv Richards, Don Bradman and Garry Sobers have all been knighted.

 

[SJS]

Viv Richards, Don Bradman and Garry Sobers have all been knighted.

That is because all of them belong to countries that have the British Monarch as their Head of state/monarch too. Those from other countries ARE sometimes knighted but those are honorary knighthoods and rare and are .... "granted to people from other countries who have made a significant contribution to relations between the United Kingdom and their own country"

Tendulkar is not eligible.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, for me knighthood lost its charm when they made it Sir Mick Jagger. What a joke!!

 

[Ikki]

Of course Tendulkar is past his best.

That's not to say that Tendulkar is not a good batsman, or that he's not worth his place in the Indian (or indeed any other lineup) in the world.

All the greats of the modern era who have retired in the last couple of years - Lara, Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Pollock - were irrefutably past their best when they called it a day. That didn't change the fact that they were still great players when they finished their careers.

I'd say Warne and McGrath were still the best bowlers going around at the time. Lara had a mini-rejuvenation but I think it's fair to say he wasn't as good as he once was. Pollock was on decline. Warne was having his best ever period during his last few years.

 

[Ikki]

If 'by this date three years ago' you mean 17th October, 2005, then it's 29 matches, 1893 runs@42.6 which is very decent by any standard (not by his standard of course)...

It stays 42 because of Bangladesh, otherwise that plummets to 38. And his averages against other countries are pretty poor as well, and the only stand-out is Australia:

Australia - 64
England - 31
Pakistan - 40
S.Africa - 28
Sri Lanka - 26

Congrats to Sachin. But he seems to be at the end of it. Like SJS, I hope he determines when he wants to retire and relaxes in whatever time he allots for himself.

 

[Precambrian]

It stays 42 because of Bangladesh, otherwise that plummets to 38. And his averages against other countries are pretty poor as well, and the only stand-out is Australia:

Australia - 64
England - 31
Pakistan - 40
S.Africa - 28
Sri Lanka - 26

Congrats to Sachin. But he seems to be at the end of it. Like SJS, I hope he determines when he wants to retire and relaxes in whatever time he allots for himself.

Ha, he's still vintage against the Aussies. And by wisely taking his worst year 2006, stats are twisted to make him look "past his best". For me stats are bull**** compared to how he looks while playing, and just yesterday he made a sweet 88 at a SR of 80. Now, how can a batsman past his peak bat at such a rate, without any element of slog, against the best side in the World?

 

[Ikki]

Ha, he's still vintage against the Aussies. And by wisely taking his worst year 2006, stats are twisted to make him look "past his best". For me stats are bull**** compared to how he looks while playing, and just yesterday he made a sweet 88 at a SR of 80. Now, how can a batsman past his peak bat at such a rate, without any element of slog, against the best side in the World?

LOL, "twisted" stats make him look past his best? He is past his best. Not near his pinnacle as the threat title suggests. Take his form since 2000 and take away minnows. He is merely average

A batsman of any sort can make a sweet 88 at an SR of 80. Only someone who is truly on form or at their pinnacle will do it consistently. Which is the entire point of Uppercut.

 

[Precambrian]

LOL, "twisted" stats make him look past his best? He is past his best. Not near his pinnacle as the threat title suggests. Take his form since 2000 and take away minnows. He is merely average

A batsman of any sort can make a sweet 88 at an SR of 80. Only someone who is truly on form or at their pinnacle will do it consistently. Which is the entire point of Uppercut.

Ah this is baiting?

Pinnacle of every test batsman is when he gets on top of the run-scoring list, and not when he's making 4 or 5 100s in a row. Because a good form run which happens to every batsman, but to make 12k runs require you to carry that form almost throughout the career. So he certainly is at the pinnacle.

Anybody can make 88 in 110 balls at SR of 80, but not the cultured and unhurried like Tendulkar does.

As to "passing his peak", yep, he might be off the everest when he used to average consistently (yearly) in the 60s. He's just moved a step down to the K2, but still at that level he's consistently making runs, though at a lower average.

It's such a shame when the beauty and class of the batsman tends to be totally overlooked just because of he's made numbers.

 

[silentstriker]

Absolutely he is past his peak. Anyone who has been watching him since around 2001 and who has watched him prior to that won't argue the point. And the stats back it up.

 

[Ikki]

Pinnacle of every test batsman is when he gets on top of the run-scoring list, and not when he's making 4 or 5 100s in a row. Because a good form run which happens to every batsman, but to make 12k runs require you to carry that form almost throughout the career. So he certainly is at the pinnacle.

I guess that's one way to look at it. The other is to be at your best. To be at the pinnacle of one's profession is to be the best.

Anybody can make 88 in 110 balls at SR of 80, but not the cultured and unhurried like Tendulkar does.

This is for another discussion. But frankly, 88 runs in 110 balls is 88 runs in 110 balls, regardless how you do it.

As to "passing his peak", yep, he might be off the everest when he used to average consistently (yearly) in the 60s. He's just moved a step down to the K2, but still at that level he's consistently making runs, though at a lower average.

It's such a shame when the beauty and class of the batsman tends to be totally overlooked just because of he's made numbers.

In about the last 6 years he's only averaged higher than 60 in one year - and that was largely due to his 248* against Bangladesh otherwise he would have been below even 60 since 2001.

As great as Sachin has been, and as great as feat as this is, he's not been near the best batsmen in the world for almost a decade.

 

[silentstriker]

As great as Sachin has been, and as great as feat as this is, he's not been near the best batsmen in the world for almost a decade.

Absolutely. From 2001-2006/07 or so, he wasn't even the best batsman in his team. Dravid had that. And overall this decade, Ponting definitely has been the best batsmen in the world, followed by Dravid and Kallis, then Hayden and Sangakarra and frankly, a bunch of others before Sachin.

(I don't want to sully up his tribute thread, but I think those are clear facts).

 

[Precambrian]

I guess that's one way to look at it. The other is to be at your best. To be at the pinnacle of one's profession is to be the best.



This is for another discussion. But frankly, 88 runs in 110 balls is 88 runs in 110 balls, regardless how you do it.



In about the last 6 years he's only averaged higher than 60 in one year - and that was largely due to his 248* against Bangladesh otherwise he would have been below even 60 since 2001.

As great as Sachin has been, and as great as feat as this is, he's not been near the best batsmen in the world for almost a decade.

A decade? I'd say he probably started to descend from the everest from 2001, post the Australian series. That doesnt mean a decade. And right now, he's still one of the best batsmen in the world. And he was best for almost a decade as well. Don;t forget that.

 

[Ikki]

A decade? I'd say he probably started to descend from the everest from 2001, post the Australian series. That doesnt mean a decade. And right now, he's still one of the best batsmen in the world. And he was best for almost a decade as well. Don;t forget that.

Well, I said "almost" and I was really counting from about 2000 onwards. Yes, he was one of the best batsmen, if not the best batsman, for his first decade. And IMO, that was his pinnacle.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't think so. Pinnacle is when one achieves a peak every cricketer can only dream about.

 

[Precambrian]

Kumar Sangakkara says Sachin is beyond legendary

 

[Precambrian]

Sunil Gavaskar has seen the rise of Tendulkar from a young age, before he made his debut, and nicknamed him Tendlya. His take on Tendulkar