In 99 he did dominate McGrath on occassions. I still remember the last test match where Tendulkar was batting with gay abandon and he pulled, hooked and drove McGrath in one over before McGrath was able to get him out with a ridiculous lbw decision (that series had some serious umpiring blinders and am not referring to the shoulder before wicket). McGrath abused Tendulkar verbally after that and that showed how much the little master had got under the skin of the master bowler.
You were indeed talking about Warne being out of form. Strange the argument applies only whenever he played against Tendulkar. Remember Tendulkar played 90% of his cricket since 99 till date with career threatening and painful injuries.
I wouldnt split hairs that far. If McGrath bowled against him in 99 and Tendulkar managed to score well overall, Tendulkar should get credit for it.
No, he didn't. Tendulkar merely played him well. Not brilliant, not dominating...nothing of that sort. If you mean a shot here and there, then that's not really domination.
I agree with you, so I sum up by saying he did pretty well. Where I draw the line is "brilliant and dominated McGrath".
Not really that strange. It also applies to NZ and WIndies whom he never had problems with. IIRC he did worse against them than India/Tendulkar.
McGrath's figures look great because of the remaining Indian batsmen who were terrible. Do you have the PvP records? I think that will give a better picture.
No, they look great because Tendulkar himself didn't score that many runs off him. Even if you take the proportion of runs Tendulkar made for his team and say he scored the same proportion against McGrath it really isn't much. And funnily enough, the two times Tendulkar doesn't make a real score is when McGrath is hit around a bit.
The difference is that while Warne had one bad series against them, he was generally poor in all the series he played against India. In 1991/92 he avged 228, In 98 he averaged 54, in 99 he averaged 41, in 01 51, and in 2004, above 30. Not even once he looked dominated India whether in Australia or India over a span of almost 14 years.Not really that strange. It also applies to NZ and WIndies whom he never had problems with. IIRC he did worse against them than India/Tendulkar.
But funny where you expect me to take into account 2004 where Tendulkar wasn't fully fit but ignore Warne getting finger and shoulder operations.
You are cleverly sidestepping lack of proof with illogical suppositions. I saw that series and McGrath never looked "dominating" tendulkar. Actually I must admit the only time Tendulkar was really troubled in that series, it was by Warne during the Melbourne test, when he beat Tendulkar 2-3 times and finally had him LBW (although dubious).
Not really. Warne played only 2 series outside of this period against India. In 92 when debuted he was green and hardly "Warne" as he became to be. And in 2004 Warne was hardly poor. The rest of the tests fall smack bang in that period 98-01 .
McGrath rarely looks like he dominates batsmen; that's his beauty. But I never recall Tendulkar taking McGrath to the cleaners. I remember Lara doing very well, but Tendulkar? No. He was happy to see him off and dig into the others.
And yet the greenhorn argument somehow does not apply to Tendulkar? He was just 18 when he first toured Australia and outdid all his peers. That is genius.
Warne was crap; Hughes was pretty good, but not in the top rung of pacers, Reid was at the end of his injury-filled career. McDermott was good, although injury-prone, but not particularly great against teams outside of England.
their averages in the 91-92 series...
It depends. When you mention Pakistan...people start talking about Tendulkar being a green-horn too
. But it wasn't a particularly great feat outdoing his teammates...they weren't that good.He had a good series...but mainly bad ones. Should we list them? Again, he did worse against NZ and WIndies than he did against India in the same time.
Tendulkar rarely got the best of McGrath; it was the other way round. They played 9 matches against each other of which Tendulkar averages in the 30s. Tendulkar "let loose whenever he wanted to"? Why didn't he want to more often?
...right, because they're gods.India in 91-92 were hardly a good team, and certainly weren't going to trouble Australia in Australia.
Sachin was very good in 99, but like MrIncredible I wonder how well he would have done had he had to face the best Australian attack more - like Lara for instance. His ability against pace in general shouldn't be questioned, but he had successes (Aus/WI) as he had failures (Pak/SA). It shouldn't be sacrilegious to analyse them deeply.
That's because your batting attack sucked. Not that they were that good. IIRC, Reid got injured and his career pretty much ended a year after this series. Good attack, definitely not great.
Apologies. I just find it tedious when someone mentions the fact that Tendulkar in one instance was too young, but gives him credit in another instance for doing well. Not that you did that but others have. It really doesn't matter if Tendulkar started off well (even though he didn't really, it only seems good with respect to his age) and Warne didn't. They faced different troubles, had different growth, etc. To name Warne in a line-up in 92 and expect people to take that attack seriously ...well you're not going to have many buyers.Use of
sure. lets do that. you start.
if you claim the aussie attack was not great and it succeeded only because the entire indian batting line up sucked, what do you say about a guy who scores two centuries ignoring all the nonsense happening around him? BTW, shastri scored a double in sydnbey and azhar scored a run a ball hundred as well. it was a good indian batting line up that was blown away by a superb aussie attack. the point is, the pace attack did exceptionally well in that series. you cant hide that fact.