Tendulkar vs Amarnath

[Richard]

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 ?

They certainly can't be any worse-off.

Kumble, incidentally, didn't play his 2nd Test until 2-and-a-half years after his first. Which kinda suggests his Test debut coming when it was was an error.

 

[Precambrian]

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.

Aww.. Disagree with you, had Tendulkar not got that kind of an initiation, he'd not be the batsman of today. Plus, averaging 33 odd after your first 7 tests, all of them away, at No.6 is not test class, then you're joking. Esp at that time, when a 40 avg was very good. If it'd been today, he would have avged 40+. Remember after a full career, Atherton avged below 40, and he was considered one of the greatest openers of his time.

 

[ret]

I like the way Richard puts his point

1. it's very stupid to get in a teenager with little FC experience but its only stupid if the age is in say early 20s
2. then he talks about the average of around 30 being poor for someone who has played 7-8 tests [he took that number because Tendulkar probably did well in his 9th test], totally ignoring that no many average 45+ in their first season!!! .... he conveniently overlooks the part where Tendulkar saved the 4th test for India against Pak in his very first series against Imran, Wasim and co
3. ignores the FC standard of India at that time, when to get good at international cricket, you had to play it and learn from it

 

[G.I.Joe]

Some good arguments here in favour of Tendulkar debuting when he did.

One thing which always confounded me - how on earth did Ajay Jadeja make his debut in a World Cup?? Seems the most unlikely tournament to experiment in.

 

[Richard]

Aww.. Disagree with you, had Tendulkar not got that kind of an initiation, he'd not be the batsman of today.

I don't see any reason to suggest that. Tendulkar was always special, that's been alluded to several times in this thread. Not quite special enough to be Test-class at the age of 16, but certainly special enough that pretty well regardless of what happened to him, he was going at some point to be exceptionally good, worthy of comparison with all bar one who've ever picked-up a bat.

Plus, averaging 33 odd after your first 7 tests, all of them away, at No.6 is not test class, then you're joking. Esp at that time, when a 40 avg was very good. If it'd been today, he would have avged 40+. Remember after a full career, Atherton avged below 40, and he was considered one of the greatest openers of his time.

That's because an average of 40 wasn't an accurate reflection of Atherton's play most of the time. Atherton was not the same player all career, he had long ups and short downs, and the downs make the ups look less good than they actually were.

Anyway, I've said it several times now - an average of 33 in Tendulkar's first 7 Tests is impressive in the circumstances, but it's still not a good average under "normal" circumstances. Had Tendulkar debuted later, he'd not have had this poor period in all likelihood. He is sufficiently good that he could've performed straightaway from his Test debut.

 

[Richard]

I like the way Richard puts his point

1. it's very stupid to get in a teenager with little FC experience but its only stupid if the age is in say early 20s

Yes, see, both are generally things you should look to avoid at all costs.

2. then he talks about the average of around 30 being poor for someone who has played 7-8 tests [he took that number because Tendulkar probably did well in his 9th test], totally ignoring that no many average 45+ in their first season!!! .... he conveniently overlooks the part where Tendulkar saved the 4th test for India against Pak in his very first series against Imran, Wasim and co

I don't overlook it at all, but that's about all of note he did.

And yes, of course I took the number of 8 Tests because Tendulkar did well in his 9th, for very obvious reasons. One period ended with 8 Tests and the next one started with his 9th. Not rocket-science

3. ignores the FC standard of India at that time, when to get good at international cricket, you had to play it and learn from it

So no Indian has ever performed from the start of their Test career?

 

[Precambrian]

What is normal? Geez, Hardly anyone in World cricket had a 45+ test average those days, let alone an Indian!

Whatever your line of thought is, if you believe Athers was a superb opener regardless of stats, Tendulkar's was the similar thing for his first 7 tests. he was test class at 16.

Your argument is that he "became" test class at 17. When he centuried against Eng.

1 year is fine with me.

 

[Ikki]

I think both sides have merit in their arguments, but I'd side with Sanz in saying that some players, i.e. Tendulkar/Warne/etc, are so good that those around them can see they are already upto standard.

These selectors aren't looking at their stats but their game, their technique, their intelligence...what have you. You gotta understand that cricketers judge other cricketers by certain aspects that may not be apparent to fans like us.

Furthermore, I believe if someone who is touted as awesome comes and fails, then that person would not have been successful really anyway. Maybe more successful than they otherwise turned out to be, but not what they were hoped to be. What Tendulkar became is something that will occur for any player like him because those players are special and will not whittle away in the test arena. These players with strong mentality and desire (as well as their talent), which is what is needed at Test level, will succeed whether they are 19 or 24. The difference being when the 19 year old is 24, he will be already a senior member of the side with a decade of good performances in front of him, whilst less time will be available once that 24 year old, (who may take less time to become a senior member but will have much less time than the 19 year old in test cricket.

Anyway, I think too much is built on the notion that failing is bad. No, failure is what you need to get better. Improving yourself is needed. Some players are special enough to handle the capacity of failing in Tests, others can't and will need a period in FC cricket to adjust. However, the latter will usually, in my estimation, not be that special player the selectors may be looking for and the former will be. Or at least tried in order to see if it will bear fruit. Of course, this is in the situation where India was and where they needed someone like Tendulkar to come trumps. Not Australia that they are so endowed with talent that they are obliged to start a lot of their cricketers later.

What you are essentially risking is that a youth may turn out like Tendulkar or that he may fail and then turn into an average player. Or that the player you thought needed time in domestic cricket will enter as an above average player and will stay there or abouts.

Dunno if Ive been clear, I'm half asleep.

 

[Richard]

What is normal? Geez, Hardly anyone in World cricket had a 45+ test average those days, let alone an Indian!

Whatever your line of thought is, if you believe Athers was a superb opener regardless of stats, Tendulkar's was the similar thing for his first 7 tests. he was test class at 16.

Your argument is that he "became" test class at 17. When he centuried against Eng.

1 year is fine with me.

It's not the same thing at all. Atherton's Test career average isn't an accurate reflection of his ability because he, like Tendulkar, played a few Tests before he was ready to do so.

Despite the fact both had been tearing it up in domestic cricket, they were too young to be playing Tests. Both should have debuted in 1990 (Atherton in the previous series that England played - against New Zealand). And had they done, the people who insist (wrongly) that career averages are the only average of any meaning would realise the truth about both players more readily.

 

[Richard]

I think both sides have merit in their arguments, but I'd side with Sanz in saying that some players, i.e. Tendulkar/Warne/etc, are so good that those around them can see they are already upto standard.

People might've thought Tendulkar and Warne were up to standard, but the fact is they weren't and their initial performances are therefore held against them when they should not be.

You know as well as anyone that it'd be so much better for Warne if he'd not played against India in 1991/92.

 

[Ikki]

People might've thought Tendulkar and Warne were up to standard, but the fact is they weren't and their initial performances are therefore held against them when they should not be.

You know as well as anyone that it'd be so much better for Warne if he'd not played against India in 1991/92.

It would have been better? How do I know it would have been better? Maybe he wouldn't have turned out to be the same player. Would it have made his stats better? Sure, but who cares?

And who says they weren't upto standard, as if the choice to play them was wrong? They both took about a year to get going. That timeframe is given to players even when they start about with 3-4 years of FC cricket under their belt. A season of trying players should be the minimum - regardless at what age/experience they come in.

 

[Precambrian]

DWTA. Tendulkar and Warne had their debuts at the right time. Many guys who had spectacular debuts have gone onto become duds or mediocre players.

Test cricket is not just about being hitting top gear always. There's always a thing for learning curve. Not even the great Don Bradman was spared of it, even though, due to his genius, he was able to shorten it.

 

[Richard]

It would have been better? How do I know it would have been better? Maybe he wouldn't have turned out to be the same player. Would it have made his stats better? Sure, but who cares?

And who says they weren't upto standard, as if the choice to play them was wrong? They both took about a year to get going. That timeframe is given to players even when they start about with 3-4 years of FC cricket under their belt. A season of trying players should be the minimum - regardless at what age/experience they come in.

It's not like no-one has ever come in and done well from the start of their Test career.

The reason so many players take time to get accustomed to the game is that so many players are picked prematurely.

Warne and Tendulkar are two such examples. It makes no sense at all to suggest they would have done worse later on had they not done badly at the time they did, because both were sufficiently good that they were always going to do well when the right time came.

 

[Richard]

DWTA. Tendulkar and Warne had their debuts at the right time. Many guys who had spectacular debuts have gone onto become duds or mediocre players.

Test cricket is not just about being hitting top gear always. There's always a thing for learning curve. Not even the great Don Bradman was spared of it, even though, due to his genius, he was able to shorten it.

Not every player takes time to adjust to Test cricket. Some players, when picked at the right time, take to the game like a duck to water.

And so what that players who made good debuts have ended-up duds? Far more have ended-up duds without doing well at the start of their careers.

 

[Precambrian]

Can you give examples of players who made debut at the right time?

Oh, Micheal Hussey?

 

[Richard]

He'd obviously be one example.

There'd be loads though. Off the top of my head: Mark Waugh; Rahul Dravid; Graham Thorpe; Mark Taylor; Graeme Smith; Andrew Strauss. I could comb through every player to play Test cricket in the last 10 years (or however long) and tell you who was right time and who was wrong time (or possibly shouldn't at all) but really, I CBA.

 

[Precambrian]

He'd obviously be one example.

There'd be loads though. Off the top of my head: Mark Waugh; Rahul Dravid; Graham Thorpe; Mark Taylor; Graeme Smith; Andrew Strauss. I could comb through every player to play Test cricket in the last 10 years (or however long) and tell you who was right time and who was wrong time (or possibly shouldn't at all) but really, I CBA.

And yet how many could sustain that record for their full careers? In hindsight, you can roll of any names as you want. A thing sadly the selectors dont have.

 

[Richard]

As a selector, you cannot guarantee a player will perform. However, you can only give him the best chance.

I don't feel there's any fairness in treating those picked before they were ready and those picked when they were ready as the same thing. A career average must be broken down - always. Except for exceptionally rare cases where a player doesn't change at all over a lengthy career - and you can probably count the number of players from the last 40 years of that ilk on one hand.