Can Tendulkar get 100 international hundreds?

[Jono]

Pretty sure there's an official Lara vs. Sachin thread. Go discuss that there.

 

[vcs]

Long may Sachin prolong his career for "statistical purposes" if his current form holds up...

EDIT : I realize you have added the disclaimer that you aren't saying this, but you do seem to be implying it.

 

[Cevno]

Tendulkar has rejuvenated himself and turned himself into a accumulator from a Master Blaster.

Don't know if anyone has been succesful in history of cricket playing almost as two different types of players over time and doing it with the same consistency.
Longevity in this case certainly matters.You can carve out his career into two very decent 10 year and 11 + year careers and you would struggle to find players who have matched even those careers individually.

 

[Furball]

Well you are right it doesn't but if the debate is between a guy who played for 21 years(and still playing) and another guy who played for 15 years and the former is still playing with the same consistency that he did 10 years ago then yes longevity does matter. It definitely adds to Tendulkar's legacy because Tendulkar Vs. Lara debate has been going on for a decade and the more Tendulkar continues to play at the highest level the mode he will be cementing his legacy as the better batsman of his generation.

That conveniently glosses over a 4-5 year period where Tendulkar was, by his lofty standards, crap.

 

[Sir Alex]

That conveniently glosses over a 4-5 year period where Tendulkar was, by his lofty standards, crap.

So no batsman ever goes through bad form?

 

[Cevno]

Don't think it was a 4 or 5 year period also.

I think it was a 2 to 3 year period at best and he still managed to average 40 odd in one of those years. And managed to average 91 odd despite being in bad form over 10 tests in 2004.

And if you are talking about that period by spread over a number of years,then Brian Lara has had more crap calendar years as such than Tendulkar if that is the comparison.

 

[Furball]

So no batsman ever goes through bad form?

No, I'm just pointing out that marvelling at Tendulkar's longevity and claiming he's still displaying the same consistency as he did 10 years ago is dishonest.

 

[vcs]

Don't think it was a 4 or 5 year period also.

I think it was a 2 to 3 year period at best and he still managed to average 40 odd in one of those years. And managed to average 91 odd despite being in bad form over 10 tests in 2004.

And if you are talking about that period by spread over a number of years,then Brian Lara has had more crap calendar years as such than Tendulkar if that is the comparison.

TBF, he was ordinary in Tests between 2003 and 2007 WCs, (whatever averages may say) by his standards, for several reasons. The 91 odd average in 2004 was, incredibly, papering over the cracks and that's meant as a compliment to him.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

No, I'm just pointing out that marvelling at Tendulkar's longevity and claiming he's still displaying the same consistency as he did 10 years ago is dishonest.

How so?The point being made,I think,is that Tendu is still as consistent as he was a decade or so ago,which is perfectly true.5 centuries this year.....most players woud take that at their peak,let alone when they are 37 and supposedly nearing retirement.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

TBF, he was ordinary in Tests between 2003 and 2007 WCs, (whatever averages may say) by his standards, for several reasons. The 91 odd average in 2004 was, incredibly, glossing over the cracks and that's meant as a compliment to him.

Granted he was nowhere near his high standards in the period you mention but it isn't a 4 or 5 year period as is being claimed.His 2 poor years were 2003 and 2006 -in between that he was quite good,averaging 91.50 and 44.40 with 4 centuries.

 

[Sir Alex]

No, I'm just pointing out that marvelling at Tendulkar's longevity and claiming he's still displaying the same consistency as he did 10 years ago is dishonest.

He had two horrible years in 2003 and 2006. the statement is that he is displaying the same 'consistency' he displayed during his first peak, which was in a period roughly 10 years back. Can't see what's dishonest about that.

 

[vcs]

Granted he was nowhere near his high standards in the period you mention but it isn't a 4 or 5 year period as is being claimed.His 2 poor years were 2003 and 2006 -in between that he was quite good,averaging 91.50 and 44.40 with 4 centuries.

Well, I watched him bat and to me, he wasn't very good despite the runs he got in those years. On the other hand, he only averaged 38 or so in the 2007 England tour but batted much better than he did at any point in that period. You could see the signs of recovery.

 

[Cevno]

Zidane didnt have to retire after the world cup, neither did Michael Jordan have to retire after winning his 6th title, players dont simply retire because they have nothing left in their tanks, there are a million other reasons to retire, loss of interest, sense of achievement, wanting to spend more time with family, wanting to give youngsters a chance etc. There is an endless list of individual all time great sportsmen who have retired early while still being at prime form. Inzamam was also in prime form when he retired.

I actually have respect for great players who dont drag their careers on and on for statistical purposes. I am not saying that Tendulkar is doing this, but its silly to not recognize that all these great players could have easily played 4-5 more years and racked up a hell of a lot of runs or goals or points. We all know Lara could still be playing today, playing very well, that is all besides the point.

Michael Jordan famously said "When I loose the sense of having to prove something as a basketball player, its time for me to move away from the game of basketball". Honestly that is how it should be.

Zidane had pretty much lost his legs when he retired . Though he was pretty good in his last tournament that whole season before it he was below par.

Jordan was below average as well when he came back and he was played more due to his brand value than his actual performance.

As for Lara still playing ,there is no way of telling whether he would have continued to score runs at a high level at this age or not. Specially when in fact he was pretty mediocre in the ICL and also went through a rough patch in his last season.

Not many top level sportsmen manage to get close to their peaks at a age which is on average is so old for their professions and manage to get close to their peak when their contemporaries have retired or faltered or have the desire to do so and the fitness levels. Just look at Jayasuriya a classic case of playing too long.

Tendulkar has achieved almsot everything,he has secured even his great grandchildren's future monetarily .Achieved so much fame and goodwill that he can still earn more from his endorsement and contract deals plus even commentary in one month even if he retires than a average person does in a year or even 2 years.
But he still has the desire to train,to maintain his fitness and to do best for his country and to achieve more even after achieving the most .That is what stands him out.


Just look at the young generation . Look at Yuvraj who after performing not even for the half the time as tendulkar and earning not even half the money or fame seemed more interested in Women and Cars rather than cricket and lost his fitness and most importantly his desire. He seemed to think he is above average and that caught up with him.
Nobody knows how anybody else would have performed in Tendulkar's position going through ups and downs and through intense scrutiny and fame. And if the comparison is with Lara ,then Lara pretty much abandoned the game in one or two situations when his mental rigidity was tested.
While Tendulkar has gone through getting his effigies burnt to his being worshipped to him being booed in his own ground to getting all the accolades and remained the same person and the same cricketer .His mental desire and toughness is what stands him out as Warnes also alluded to when he claimed his as the best.

 

[Cevno]

TBF, he was ordinary in Tests between 2003 and 2007 WCs, (whatever averages may say) by his standards, for several reasons. The 91 odd average in 2004 was, incredibly, papering over the cracks and that's meant as a compliment to him.

Everyone is good when their in good form and going through a purple patch.
Just look at Hussey and his incredible stats in that time.

Tendulkar was decent even in his rough patch though not as good as others who were racking up the runs in that period which was the time when many batsmen started boosting their averages and what not.

And if you include his Odi form at the time too he was pretty decent and not "Crap" though below his lofty standards certainly.

 

[Sir Alex]

Well, I watched him bat and to me, he wasn't very good despite the runs he got in those years. On the other hand, he only averaged 38 or so in the 2007 England tour but batted much better than he did at any point in that period. You could see the signs of recovery.

I would take a 100 full of edges/chances to a supremely played 30 odd tbh. Yes from viewing perspective it makes a difference but then analysing such stuff from purely watchability index is quite dishonest imho. It should be a mixture of watchability and sheer contribution. Sachin was completely out of sorts in 2003 and 2005-06. If he managed to average 91 and 45 despite being out of form in 2004 and 2005, it is actually a testimony to his tenacity to grind it out.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Well, I watched him bat and to me, he wasn't very good despite the runs he got in those years.

Agreed but looking at it from a statistical point of view,he wasn't poor for 4-5 years as was claimed earlier.

If only aesthetics is the criterion,then few sights match the Tendu of the 90s,or more specifically 98.Even now he is more like Jacques Kallis to me in that he accumulates w/o taking risks at a fair clip.

 

[vcs]

I would take a 100 full of edges/chances to a supremely played 30 odd tbh. Yes from viewing perspective it makes a difference but then analysing such stuff from purely watchability index is quite dishonest imho. It should be a mixture of watchability and sheer contribution. Sachin was completely out of sorts in 2003 and 2005-06. If he managed to average 91 and 45 despite being out of form in 2004 and 2005, it is actually a testimony to his tenacity to grind it out.

True but it often manifested in him failing when the team really needed something and scoring in easy situations which is not the case anymore.

 

[Cevno]

Remember that period where he was in a rough patch overlapped with his tennis elbow problems and other injuries, which resulted in him losing the power he had in his shots earlier.

He was written off by many ,and also prominent figures called for him to retire saying physically he was gone. But he has somewhat miraculously remodelled his game to overcome those physical limitations and gone on a patch which i don't think anybody predicted.

 

[Sir Alex]

A certain DG Bradman was never exactly praised as the pinnacle of watchability too. I would take anyday Tendulkar Mark III (ie now) to even Tendulkar of the 90s. Back then Tendulkar looked imperious but also vulnerable. But now there is almost a predictable constancy and safe feeling to his innings. Once he gets set, a big score is almost due by default. And his stroke repertoire hasn't diminished one bit, merely his body movements have become more economical. There are no exaggerated flourishes or follow throughs, yet the power and timing imparted have never been better.

Looking good is subjective and often useless criteria while judging individual contributions.

 

[Sir Alex]

True but it often manifested in him failing when the team really needed something and scoring in easy situations which is not the case anymore.

Quite an easy argument to make isn't it? But when u dig in deep, you are basically talking about 2 years, and tell me how many such instances can u recollect when Sachin failed to deliver when India needed him (ie, 2004 and 2005). Agreed he had his share of failures but relatively how worse did Sachin perform than say a ponting or a Lara whent they too were/are going through a bad patch?