Tendulkar : End of reign in ODIs???

[Precambrian]

I'm perfectly fine with Gambhir at 3 with Tendulkar in the side. Gambhir has got a pretty good record at number 3 and seems to suit that position just fine. Tendulkar and Sehwag at the start is a fantastic opening partnership, only for Gambhir's solidity and strokeplay to come in and keep the tempo going. This balance worked somewhat well in Australia and it would be a pretty daunting top 3 for any opposition bowling unit.

AWTA. and with yuvi coming in at 4, Raina at 5, Dhoni at 6, Just could demoralise any opposition. And Yusuf Pathan is doing no wrong to take the No.7 spot.

 

[honestbharani]

To play the DA here, it did seem to me a little bit like Gambhir only seemed to do well when he came in reasonably early at 3...


As others have said, Sachin is the greatest ODI bat of all time (for me, at least) and he should always play in the position that he is more comfortable at.


That said, I don't see any reason why he can't make a great #3... Maybe it is just some psychological thing he has.. Guess even he is not perfect.



But honestly speaking, Sachin and Sehwag at the top and Gambhir at 3 is no problem at all, really. Most teams would kill for a top 3 of that quality and form, in the case of Gambhir.

 

[weldone]

AWTA. and with yuvi coming in at 4, Raina at 5, Dhoni at 6, Just could demoralise any opposition. And Yusuf Pathan is doing no wrong to take the No.7 spot.

With top 6 like this, I would prefer a bowling al-rounder at number 7...Yusuf Pathan is nothing more than an average part-time bowler...Personally I would prefer Irfan in Yusuf's spot, not because he's a better player than Yusuf, but for the balance of the team...I always believe that you can go with 4 bowlers in a ODI only when you have a bowling al-rounder (better, a perfect al-rounder, but they're so rare) as your 5th bowler...

 

[morgieb]

If his one-day career was finished then why is he still playing?

 

[shankar]

That said, I don't see any reason why he can't make a great #3... Maybe it is just some psychological thing he has.. Guess even he is not perfect.

It could be psychological. But it also seems like he doesn't like to come in and start his innings by working around the ball for singles. I think he prefers when he can get off to a start with some boundaries and then later on switch to a 'ones & twos' mode.

 

[krkode]

Yeah, I think the days of Indian reliance on Tendulkar are done. I don't think he's overstaying his welcome, though. It's good that we no longer rely on him like we used to. Sure we can probably make do without him but I think he still has a good deal to offer. And if one were to make an objective selection of the 7 best batsmen to include in a team, I am sure he will be a part of that group for many many years to come. Maybe I'm just saying that cuz I'm a Tendulkar fan, but I do badly want to see him in the 2011 WC. And of course, I want India to win.

As for disturbing the existing core of the team... possibly. But knowing what little we do know of Tendulkar, he doesn't seem like a destructive influence. It's not like his presence would detract from team spirit or cohesiveness, in fact, I think it would add to it. There will always be little golden periods where we roll over teams despite not having our big guns, but reading too much into them is a mistake, IMHO. Because when the shiz hits the fan and all the young, inexperienced kids fail, and you just need someone to step up, it'll be Tendulkar.

[/fan boy off].

 

[honestbharani]

It could be psychological. But it also seems like he doesn't like to come in and start his innings by working around the ball for singles. I think he prefers when he can get off to a start with some boundaries and then later on switch to a 'ones & twos' mode.

yeah, that sounds a good reason. But then again, I don't think Sehwag or Gambhir are as skilled as Sachin when it comes to rotating the strike either. As I said though, we are very lucky to have such good and form batsmen in our top 3. Heck, they can play musical chairs and decide who gets to open for that day...

 

[Richard]

Sehwag has to open for me. He should either open or not play. He's useless at three and even more useless in the middle-order.

Tendulkar, curiously, is even more useless at three. Now, sure, it has to be coincidence that his average is only just out of single-figures at the position, but it suggests he's not well-suited to batting there at all. Four is much the preferable out of the two.

Shankar's point about him not liking to have to come in and immediately turn the strike over seems the most valid I've yet heard raised in the Tendulkar-anti-batting-in-the-middle stakes. However, I'd still say that, if he's a proper team man (which I've always had every reason to believe he is) that he'd realise that he can do this better than other alternatives, while other alternatives can do the job at the top as well as he can. So therefore when someone (like Sehwag, like Ganguly, like Uthappa, etc.) is in place who is totally dissuited to batting down the order, I'd be disappointed if Tendulkar objected too much to batting at four.

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag has to open for me. He should either open or not play. He's useless at three and even more useless in the middle-order.

Not "useless". But his impact on opposition is maximum as opener.

Tendulkar, curiously, is even more useless at three. Now, sure, it has to be coincidence that his average is only just out of single-figures at the position, but it suggests he's not well-suited to batting there at all. Four is much the preferable out of the two.

He's played only a microscopic 10 games (as compared to 400 ODIs). And is more of an exception. If you judge Tendulkar is averaging 50 at No.2(249 games), and 10 at No.3 (10 games) and judge that he is not a No.3, it's laughable. And I don't think positions really matter in ODIs as compared to Test matches. The better batsman bats higher up the order, and Tendulkar being the best obv claims opener role.

Shankar's point about him not liking to have to come in and immediately turn the strike over seems the most valid I've yet heard raised in the Tendulkar-anti-batting-in-the-middle stakes. However, I'd still say that, if he's a proper team man (which I've always had every reason to believe he is) that he'd realise that he can do this better than other alternatives, while other alternatives can do the job at the top as well as he can. So therefore when someone (like Sehwag, like Ganguly, like Uthappa, etc.) is in place who is totally dissuited to batting down the order, I'd be disappointed if Tendulkar objected too much to batting at four.

I don't know why you so desperately want Tendulkar at No.4, since he's doing absolutely nothing wrong at No.2. Gambhir has eased into No.3 like fish to water. And he can continue in that position, till Tendulkar quits ODIs altogether.
And Tendulkar has NEVER said HE WILL NOT play at No.4, It's only that he is not comfortable with and with all his experience know that Tendulkar opening is much better than Tendulkar at No.4. And Shankar's point is all the more obvious. Also note that he's getting older and hence has a natural tendency not to run too much between wickets (required during the middle overs), and likes to hit fours. Since he has done this exceptionally, there is absolutely no need to tinker with that. Plus him batting at No.4 recently was forced on him Greg Chappell, which completely backfired, as the new opener, could not provide the stability that Tendulkar gave, to the ever-on-the-edge Sehwag. Also, Tendulkar underperformed at No.4. Tendulkar at No.4 is fine for tests, but not for ODIs.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, I think the days of Indian reliance on Tendulkar are done. I don't think he's overstaying his welcome, though. It's good that we no longer rely on him like we used to. Sure we can probably make do without him but I think he still has a good deal to offer. And if one were to make an objective selection of the 7 best batsmen to include in a team, I am sure he will be a part of that group for many many years to come. Maybe I'm just saying that cuz I'm a Tendulkar fan, but I do badly want to see him in the 2011 WC. And of course, I want India to win.

As for disturbing the existing core of the team... possibly. But knowing what little we do know of Tendulkar, he doesn't seem like a destructive influence. It's not like his presence would detract from team spirit or cohesiveness, in fact, I think it would add to it. There will always be little golden periods where we roll over teams despite not having our big guns, but reading too much into them is a mistake, IMHO. Because when the shiz hits the fan and all the young, inexperienced kids fail, and you just need someone to step up, it'll be Tendulkar.

[/fan boy off].

ie. in Australia last year.

 

[Jono]

Merge this with the other Sachin ODI thread?

 

[Furball]

Sehwag has to open for me. He should either open or not play. He's useless at three and even more useless in the middle-order.

Tendulkar, curiously, is even more useless at three. Now, sure, it has to be coincidence that his average is only just out of single-figures at the position, but it suggests he's not well-suited to batting there at all. Four is much the preferable out of the two.

Shankar's point about him not liking to have to come in and immediately turn the strike over seems the most valid I've yet heard raised in the Tendulkar-anti-batting-in-the-middle stakes. However, I'd still say that, if he's a proper team man (which I've always had every reason to believe he is) that he'd realise that he can do this better than other alternatives, while other alternatives can do the job at the top as well as he can. So therefore when someone (like Sehwag, like Ganguly, like Uthappa, etc.) is in place who is totally dissuited to batting down the order, I'd be disappointed if Tendulkar objected too much to batting at four.

Very much a moot point when you consider Gambhir's success at 3.

Sehwag-Tendulkar-Gambhir-Yuvraj-Raina-Dhoni is a ridiculously strong ODI lineup.

 

[G.I.Joe]

All attacking batsmen for the most, though. India might miss someone like Dravid when it comes to huge chases.

 

[Richard]

Aye, that suggestion was made in the other thread hactually.

C'mon moderators!

 

[Richard]

Very much a moot point when you consider Gambhir's success at 3.

Sehwag-Tendulkar-Gambhir-Yuvraj-Raina-Dhoni is a ridiculously strong ODI lineup.

As I said, Gambhir at three is fine. Uthappa at six or seven was not. Nor Sehwag or Ganguly at four or five.

 

[Richard]

All attacking batsmen for the most, though. India might miss someone like Dravid when it comes to huge chases.

Small chases, surely?

 

[Precambrian]

Small chases, surely?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...ns;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

22 times Dravid has scored 50+ in Indian successful chases

 

[G.I.Joe]

Small chases, surely?

Nah, huge chases. He was extremely adept at throwing anchor at one end and preventing collapses. Other than the rare occasion, I can see this lineup of aggressive batsmen throwing their wickets away going for big runs in a huge chase.

 

[silentstriker]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...ns;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

22 times Dravid has scored 50+ in Indian successful chases

Slightly misleading, as he has played 333 matches. Tendulkar, for example, has done it 41 times.

 

[Richard]

Nah, huge chases. He was extremely adept at throwing anchor at one end and preventing collapses. Other than the rare occasion, I can see this lineup of aggressive batsmen throwing their wickets away going for big runs in a huge chase.

I see. Well, a player playing like the Dravid stereotype (not always reality - I've seen him smash the ball all over the place in ODIs, exactly the same as Michael Bevan) isn't helpful in big chases but is exactly what you want in small ones on difficult surfaces.

You can't really afford an "anchor" style role if you're chasing 300+ in a ODI. If so, it needs to be a SR-90-rather-than-SR-110-style anchor.