Tendulkar vs Amarnath

[NUFAN]

1989 thoughts...

Go Sachin to be honest, looks a useful talent.

 

[honestbharani]

tendulkar didn't become a test player straight from school cricket, he played ranji, duleep and irani trophy matches and scored centuries on debut in each...he was identified as a rare talent and even though he didn't exactly set the international stage alight in his 1st year or so, he displayed flashes of brilliance along with a mental toughness and temperament that showed he belonged...that said i agree with your general point...

AWTA... And my previous post was a general thing too, not specific to Tendulkar or others.


Honestly, I was only 5 or 6 when he made his debut and I have next to no idea what the circumstances were when he was picked. But Anil pointed out that he was doing well in Ranji, Duleep, Irani etc.. So that is not a bad pick in that instance..

 

[Sanz]

AWTA... And my previous post was a general thing too, not specific to Tendulkar or others.


Honestly, I was only 5 or 6 when he made his debut and I have next to no idea what the circumstances were when he was picked. But Anil pointed out that he was doing well in Ranji, Duleep, Irani etc.. So that is not a bad pick in that instance..

Tendulkar played Domestic cricket for one full year before getting drafted into the National side. In his first season in Rani Trophy he scored 583 runs in 7 matches @ 65
. Irani Trophy scorecard before the Pakistan Series :-

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/engine/match/369641.html

Please Note, back in those days performance in the Irani Trophy match addeed a lt of value for any upcoming tours.
First and Only player to score a ton in debut matches in Ranji, Rani and Duleep Trophy.

Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RSm1EXRJM&feature=related

 

[silentstriker]

Besides, Kambli didn't make his debut @ the age of 16, Nor did Hirwani. Actually Vinod Kambli's example negates your logic about age unless you argue that the right age to debut is 25 or so because Kambli was about 21 or so when he made his test debut.

I meant Vinod Kambli seemed as talented as Tendulkar at the young age. And yes, I do think around 24-26 is about the right age for a batsman. A little younger for the fast bowlers.

I dont worship youth, but Tendulkar was no ordinary cricketer even as a schoolboy. I dont know from where you get the impression that Tendulkar came to play Test Cricket directly from School, it is totally incorrect.

That's not what I said. I said he was unproven at the FC level. In my opinion, you need at least 4-5 years of FC cricket before you learn your game.

Here are the five youngest players to debut for India. Remember that these players were supposed to be best of Indian talent, considering they made it over FC stalwarts based on pure ability:

1. 16y 205d SR Tendulkar
2. 17y 75d Piyush Chawla
3. 17y 118d L Sivaramakrishnan
4. 17y 152d PA Patel
5. 17y 193d Maninder Singh
6. 17y 265d VL Mehra

So, how is that working out for us? One success does not mean its a good rule.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar played Domestic cricket for one full year before getting drafted into the National side. In his first season in Rani Trophy he scored 583 runs in 7 matches @ 65
. Irani Trophy scorecard before the Pakistan Series :-

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/engine/match/369641.html

Please Note, back in those days performance in the Irani Trophy match addeed a lt of value for any upcoming tours.
First and Only player to score a ton in debut matches in Ranji, Rani and Duleep Trophy.

Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RSm1EXRJM&feature=related

I meant Vinod Kambli seemed as talented as Tendulkar at the young age. And yes, I do think around 24-26 is about the right age for a batsman. A little younger for the fast bowlers.



That's not what I said. I said he was unproven at the FC level. In my opinion, you need at least 4-5 years of FC cricket before you learn your game.

Here are the five youngest players to debut for India. Remember that these players were supposed to be best of Indian talent, considering they made it over FC stalwarts based on pure ability:

1. 16y 205d SR Tendulkar
2. 17y 75d Piyush Chawla
3. 17y 118d L Sivaramakrishnan
4. 17y 152d PA Patel
5. 17y 193d Maninder Singh
6. 17y 265d VL Mehra

So, how is that working out for us? One success does not mean its a good rule.

Thanks to Anil and Sanz for pointing out Sachin's record leading up to his selection.

I have no qualms when you pick a guy who has obvious potential and has also shown performance to back it up for a period of time (1 year, in this case).. Only thing is, if it is a young prodigy showing up today, I will wait till he finishes his sophomore year in FC cricket before picking him, as there is always the chance that he could be worked out.. Otherwise, I have no qualms when ppl show obvious potential and back it up with performance and you pick them, irrespective of age.


But guys like Parthiv were selected PURELY on potential. He simply didn't play enough FC cricket to show the performances needed... THAT is when the problem starts, IMHO.

 

[Sanz]

I meant Vinod Kambli seemed as talented as Tendulkar at the young age. And yes, I do think around 24-26 is about the right age for a batsman. A little younger for the fast bowlers..

But Kambli made his debute some 4 years after Sachin and doesn't prove anything that you wanted to by citing his example. Why didn't Sanjay Manjrekar succeed despite making his debut @ 22 ? It is not as simple as you suggest. If a player is ready,like Tendulkar was, he should be given the chance to play.You cant and should not follow 'Rule of Thumb' for such things.

And as far as debut age of 24-26 is concerened, I dont think that is the correct age for subcontinent batsman, that is too late. I fail to recall any great batsman from Subcontinent who made their debut after 24 years of age. Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Dravid, Miandad, Inzi, vishy were all < 24. Only Dravid was above 23.

 

[viktor]

SS, I don't disagree that ideally a player shouldn't be brought in without 3-4 seasons of FC cricket but Sachin Tendulkar was a special case.
Of the 5 players you have mentioned, Siva and Maninder fell away not due to any lack of skills per se but due other non-cricketing reasons. Mehra, according to Cricinfo, actually got a couple of more chances but didn't really succeed big. And Patel, for better or worse is still in the frame for an India call-up, which suggests he wasn't the worst call.
Coming back to Tendulkar, the situation in 1988-89 in Indian cricket was similar to what it is now. Gavaskar had retired 2 years ago, Amarnath fell away had also retired (I think). Vengsarkar was on his way out too. A few middle order players had been tried and discarded. Ashok Malhotra, Gurusharan Singh etc.
At that point, Tendulkar might have seemed to like a good punt.

 

[Sanz]

That's not what I said. I said he was unproven at the FC level. In my opinion, you need at least 4-5 years of FC cricket before you learn your game.

I dont think you can set a criteria like that.

Here are the five youngest players to debut for India. Remember that these players were supposed to be best of Indian talent, considering they made it over FC stalwarts based on pure ability:

1. 16y 205d SR Tendulkar
2. 17y 75d Piyush Chawla
3. 17y 118d L Sivaramakrishnan
4. 17y 152d PA Patel
5. 17y 193d Maninder Singh
6. 17y 265d VL Mehra

So, how is that working out for us? One success does not mean its a good rule.

I think it has worked out great, because 1 out of 6 turned out to be arguably the greatest player of his generation and Maninder Singh has had a better careers than the likes of Sanjay Bangar. Take a look at Ishant Sharma, he barely had any FC experience, yet he has proved that be belongs, Ravi Shastri, Dilip Vengsarkar, Harbhajan Singh, Chandra adll made their debut before their 19th B'day. They turned out to be good. Please name one Indian or subcontinent player who debuted between 24-26 and had a greater career than those people.

Anil Kumble was < 20, when he made his debut, so was Kapil Dev. If we had waited for another 4-5 years, who knows where they would be right now. Consider Ishant Sharma, Do you really believe that India (and Ishant himself) are better off waiting for another 4 years ?

 

[silentstriker]

They turned out to be good. Please name one Indian or subcontinent player who debuted between 24-26 and had a greater career than those people.

Rahul Dravid, was around 24.

Consider Ishant Sharma, Do you really believe that India (and Ishant himself) are better off waiting for another 4 years ?

You quote people, obviously if you throw enough people, some will stick by chance. That's not how you build a side. Ishant Sharma may be good (it's to be seen), and yes he might have benefited from a couple more years of FC cricket. For one Ishant, how many Balajis, Pathans, Nehras and ten others?

My point is not that people cannot succeed, it's that they have a better chance of success if you allow them to learn their game and ply their trade professionally for a while. Unfortunately, many of our best promising players are shuttled in too early and we have a string of failures.

I would certainly institute a rule that specifies a minimum of three FC seasons before someone can be picked.

 

[Precambrian]

Tendulkar was unlike any other player who made his debut in the teens. He was earmarked for International cricket right from his school days, and was the talk of Mumbai even before he made his FC debut. Sunil Gavaskar used to follow his progress right from his school days.

He had an average of 65 in his first year, and a century in his first game in 1989 season meant he was fasttracked to the national team.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, yeah, it was, because he struggled for his first 8 Tests in his first season.
It might have been extremely likely (though obviously nothing is ever beyond all doubt) that he was going to succeed at some point, but 16 is still far too young to be being picked for the first time and even one of the best batsmen in history like Tendulkar was not up to it at that age.

Tendulkar, had an average of 33.25 in his first 7 tests, all of those played Away. (4 in Pak, 3 in NZ). You forget that he batted at No.6, and that average is respectable for a youngster in his debut season.

 

[Sanz]

Rahul Dravid, was around 24.

23 years 5 months.

 

[Sanz]

You quote people, obviously if you throw enough people, some will stick by chance. That's not how you build a side. Ishant Sharma may be good (it's to be seen), and yes he might have benefited from a couple more years of FC cricket. For one Ishant, how many Balajis, Pathans, Nehras and ten others?

My point is not that people cannot succeed, it's that they have a better chance of success if you allow them to learn their game and ply their trade professionally for a while. Unfortunately, many of our best promising players are shuttled in too early and we have a string of failures.

I would certainly institute a rule that specifies a minimum of three FC seasons before someone can be picked.

Balaji was 22 and not some teenage prodigy. Nehra was 20. Now compare him to guys like Paras Mahmbrey who spent some good years bowling in domestic cricket. What happened to Sunil Joshi who debuted for India @ 26 ? Vikram Rathour, Vijay Dahiya , Vijay Bhardwaj, Nikhil Chopra and 100s of others who spent quite a few years in FC cricket before making it to the Indian team but failed miserably.

IMO, there should not be any fixed criteria, it has rarely worked and If you took out the averages, you will always find that the success/failure ratio is same for the age group you mentioned compared to those that are blooded early.

 

[honestbharani]

Balaji was 22 and not some teenage prodigy. Nehra was 20. Now compare him to guys like Paras Mahmbrey who spent some good years bowling in domestic cricket. What happened to Sunil Joshi who debuted for India @ 26 ? Vikram Rathour, Vijay Dahiya , Vijay Bhardwaj, Nikhil Chopra and 100s of others who spent quite a few years in FC cricket before making it to the Indian team but failed miserably.

IMO, there should not be any fixed criteria, it has rarely worked and If you took out the averages, you will always find that the success/failure ratio is same for the age group you mentioned compared to those that are blooded early.

I agree with u in essence but Sanz don't you think you will need AT LEAST 1 year or maybe 2 of domestic cricket before we can get them into the national team?


Getting them in with no experience whatsoever definitely has more chances of backfiring...

 

[Precambrian]

I agree with u in essence but Sanz don't you think you will need AT LEAST 1 year or maybe 2 of domestic cricket before we can get them into the national team?


Getting them in with no experience whatsoever definitely has more chances of backfiring...

Tendulkar made his debut after a full 1 season of FC>

 

[Sanz]

I agree with u in essence but Sanz don't you think you will need AT LEAST 1 year or maybe 2 of domestic cricket before we can get them into the national team?


Getting them in with no experience whatsoever definitely has more chances of backfiring...

Ofcourse, I do and Tendulkar did have 1 year of experience in Domestic Cricket as opposed to the suggestion that his was a transition from school cricket to Test Cricket.

IMO 1 year is a good enough period for players like Tendulkar, Warne, Akram, Mcgrath etc, there is no point in waiting for another 3-4 seasons of domestic cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Ofcourse, I do and Tendulkar did have 1 year of experience in Domestic Cricket as opposed to the suggestion that his was a transition from school cricket to Test Cricket.

IMO 1 year is a good enough period for players like Tendulkar, Warne, Akram, Mcgrath etc, there is no point in waiting for another 3-4 seasons of domestic cricket.

yeah and I did make the point in my earlier post that I am not saying picking Sachin was a wrong move or anything...


Just hypothetically speaking though..

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar made his debut after a full 1 season of FC>

and I agreed that it was a good move even without hindsight, since he had that 1 year success and had torn apart the domestic bowlers in my earlier post.

 

[Cevno]

You can't pick an isolated incident and use it to put forward a theory. Create a list of all players who debuted before their 19th birthday and look at their careers.
It will especially be galling considering those were considered to be the best and the brightest in the country. You'll be surprised how many were ruined forever.

How about then creating a list of players who debuted above 19(or 22-24) and looking at their careers too?I am sure there will be many faliures there too.
A thumb rule cannot be used in the cases as you seem to imply.As they say"If you are good enough ,you are old enough".

Many player have been ruined too when not being selected when they considtently performed at Test level in india.They can easily lose motivation in domestic cricket if their performances are not rewarded over a period of time.

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar, had an average of 33.25 in his first 7 tests, all of those played Away. (4 in Pak, 3 in NZ). You forget that he batted at No.6, and that average is respectable for a youngster in his debut season.

I don't forget either of these things. I've said several times that virtually no 16-year-olds would have a cat-in-hell's chance of even keeping their heads above water in a Test.

However, it was simply needless. Tendulkar may have been not that far off the pace, but he was off the pace. He was not a Test-class batsman at 16 and it was unreasonable to expect him to have been. It'd have been much preferable for all concerned if Tendulkar had debuted on the England tour of 1990.

Not least because had he done so, his average would've been up to 61 at the peak of his career. Which would've made people realise how good he was better than I think they currently do, now his average has dropped a fair bit.