Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[Ikki]

But who said he was clearly ahead in all other years? I'm sure there were plenty of years where Waugh or Lara were ahead in the 90s. In the 00s Ponting and Kallis were also ahead for many. It's not like he was the standout best every year bar years in the 00s.

 

[Cevno]

He's always been amongst the best or thereabouts. Should I have put Waugh? My point was I wouldn't use longevity to say he is better than these guys. Sachin has better points IMO, but it still makes the difference only slight and that's what it will always be. So when people start getting caught in the hype and start comparing Tendulkar to Bradman; they should know they're inadvertantly making the case for guys like Ponting and Lara too. If they are saying Tendulkar is one of the greats of the modern era; the same again goes for the other guys too.

True.

But the point is that Even on the longevity argument Lara and Ponting are not really ahead of Tendulkar or to the combinations of his records in both tests and ODI's.

 

[smash84]

some good quality arguments put forward by both sides......

 

[vcs]

To people who say 100 hundreds or whatever is unremarkable (and it's not a big point to bring up when comparing him to his peers) because it's just a function of longevity, if that were the case, there would be more people pushing at 75, 80, 90 etc. As it stands, there's only Ponting at 69, and even his 100-scoring rate has dipped in the past year or so. Like Cevno said, you have to be brilliant at both forms for a very long time to rack up numbers like that. And this is despite going his first 80 games without a hundred batting down the order, hardly playing any ODIs in the last year, and hitting ****loads of 95+ scores in 2007.

 

[GotSpin]

Yes, he's been at the top or thereabouts for longer than any batsman in the last 20 years. And he has years to add to that. I agree with that.

Key word for mine. It was thereabouts, not far and away the best. I have no problem with putting Tendulkar up as one of the best batsmen of the last twenty years, but as I've pointed out, I take issue with the idea that he is head and shoulders above.

 

[GotSpin]

He didn't really decline ,tbh.

He was not there clear on the top like in the 90's ,but he was still good over a decent period of time.

Mostly it was due to injuries and a loss of form which is to be expected in a 20 year career and is again a thing that is affected by starting so early at such a high level.

But that's no reason to put down the achievements of other batsmen and say it was a time to milk runs when Tendulkar himself failed.

 

[Ikki]

On the other hand he has played more, and had more opportunities. It is not like Ponting or those chasing the 99 100s are scoring centuries at a snail's pace. It's a nice point to have, but too much can be made of it. I mean, you had people saying that his centuries record put him on a Bradman-like plane which is just absurd. I appreciate his longevity but in the end a lot of it has to do with being picked in circumstances that the others could not replicate as it was out of their hands. As a question of ability it is a big grey area. Do you think Tendulkar is achieving something because something inherent in his ability is putting him ahead of the others or is it because of opportunity? For me, I lean much more to the latter. I don't think there is much in it between the aforementioned batsmen to think too much of the 100s record.

It's akin to comparing players from different eras where one player played less matches in his; but this just happened to be in the same era.

 

[Daemon]

If Sachin can't score another hundred in any format, then we have a new 'Bradman'

 

[Cevno]

But who said he was clearly ahead in all other years? I'm sure there were plenty of years where Waugh or Lara were ahead in the 90s. In the 00s Ponting and Kallis were also ahead for many. It's not like he was the standout best every year bar years in the 00s.

And that is why i said a decent period of time. I.e combination of atleast 3/4 years.

For individual years there could be all kins of people on the top.

And here we are talking about also consistency in being amongst the top.

 

[Cevno]

Key word for mine. It was thereabouts, not far and away the best. I have no problem with putting Tendulkar up as one of the best batsmen of the last twenty years, but as I've pointed out, I take issue with the idea that he is head and shoulders above.

But the fact is that no one has been the best some and year and even thereabouts for such a long time.

He was clearly ahead in the 90's and then was thereabouts and then he again has been at the very top .

And here in this day and age when there are so many good batsman and variations it is remarkable.

And that argument just applies to test matches alone,let alone his outstanding ODI RECORD.

 

[Ikki]

But Ponting, Lara and Waugh were consistently amongst the top for many years as well. I think you're simply myopic in this regard. You say individual years could mean skewed results/random names. Heck, if you take 2000-2009 Tendulkar is like the 25th highest average of the decade, excluding minnows. One has to look at it with a broader perspective. Tendulkar has had outstanding years, like the last few, some poor years, like the mid-90s and years in between where he was not the best, but still a force to be reckoned with. That happens with essentially every all-time great bat. In the end, you're still balancing troughs and peaks; and that will show in the average. And when you compare averages, he is one of the best - as he will always be.

 

[Jono]

On the other hand he has played more, and had more opportunities. It is not like Ponting or those chasing the 99 100s are scoring centuries at a snail's pace. It's a nice point to have, but too much can be made of it. I mean, you had people saying that his centuries record put him on a Bradman-like plane which is just absurd. I appreciate his longevity but in the end a lot of it has to do with being picked in circumstances that the others could not replicate as it was out of their hands. As a question of ability it is a big grey area. Do you think Tendulkar is achieving something because something inherent in his ability is putting him ahead of the others or is it because of opportunity? For me, I lean much more to the latter. I don't think there is much in it between the aforementioned batsmen to think too much of the 100s record.

It's akin to comparing players from different eras where one player played less matches in his; but this just happened to be in the same era.

Lol. The reason he has that over all other batsmen is just opportunity, not ability? It's points like that that are so denigrating to his achievements.

Come on. Other than Ponting, no one has the ability to rack up ODI and test tons together even close to him. Not Dravid, not Kallis, not Lara and not Steve Waugh.

 

[vcs]

Mainly in reply to Ikki's point about him not getting picked and persisted with at such an early age if he wasn't Indian...

He was good enough not just to get picked at a very early age, but also hold down his place in the Test team by performing at a very creditable level. His first 20 matches were the toughest baptism any young player can have when entering into Test cricket, particularly for a 16 year-old from the subcontinent.

4 Tests in Pakistan (Imran, Wasim and a debutant Waqar in the same game as Sachin, we all know he got a bloodied nose and help save the last Test in that series.)
3 Tests in NZ
3 Tests in England (got his first century saving the game in the process)
1 Test at home to SL
5 Tests in Australia (100 on a bouncy Perth track where everyone else struggled and a hundred in Sydney)
1 Test in Zimbabwe
4 Tests in SA (Donald, McMillan, Schultz, Pringle, Matthews etc., he averaged around 35 and got a century)

To come out of that in one's teens, averaging close to 40 with 4 hundreds, is an amazing feat. Look at Kambli's introduction to Tests by comparison, debuted against a battered England at home with the series already won, followed by Zimbabwe. No wonder he scored twin double-hundreds.

 

[Spark]

Lol. The reason he has that over all other batsmen is just opportunity, not ability? It's points like that that are so denigrating to his achievements.

Come on. Other than Ponting, no one has the ability to rack up ODI and test tons together even close to him. Not Dravid, not Kallis, not Lara and not Steve Waugh.

Doesn't that kind of confirm his point?

 

[Jono]

I said 'close' to him. Ponting is close. The others aren't in terms of ability covering both formats.

 

[Ikki]

Lol. The reason he has that over all other batsmen is just opportunity, not ability? It's points like that that are so denigrating to his achievements.

Come on. Other than Ponting, no one has the ability to rack up ODI and test tons together even close to him. Not Dravid, not Kallis, not Lara and not Steve Waugh.

You've misunderstood me. The difference between Ponting and Tendulkar's 100s in both formats is some 30 100s. Not in any facet of their games is the difference that large. So I ask, is that a reflection of their ability or opportunity? Clearly, it isn't all ability. One can comprehend Tendulkar being better than Ponting, but that much better? No, a lot of it would have to do with opportunity.

Also, with the names you mention...some of them weren't notable ODI players and all of them weren't openers which will affect their 100s scored.

 

[sledger]

Should Tendulkar now retire?

Seen it all, done it all, won it all. Yes imo, the only way is down.

 

[Bun]

You've misunderstood me. The difference between Ponting and Tendulkar's 100s in both formats is some 30 100s. Not in any facet of their games is the difference that large. So I ask, is that a reflection of their ability or opportunity? Clearly, it isn't all ability. One can comprehend Tendulkar being better than Ponting, but that much better? No, a lot of it would have to do with opportunity.

Also, with the names you mention...some of them weren't notable ODI players and all of them weren't openers which will affect their 100s scored.

30 international 100s, 11 in tests alone, isn't that big enough??

Re: openers, how many of them avg over 50?

 

[Ikki]

He was good enough not just to get picked at a very early age, but also hold down his place in the Test team by performing at a very creditable level. His first 20 matches were the toughest baptism any young player can have when entering into Test cricket, particularly for a 16 year-old from the subcontinent.

You're kidding yourself if you think Tendulkar would have been picked for Australia any earlier than Ponting was. Ponting himself was picked at 20 which is a very early age in our setup - and he was tipped as a prodigy as well.

Still, from debut till about the age Ponting came Tendulkar had a pretty ordinary record against everyone bar Australia and England. Averaged 30s or lower against every other team IIRC. Yes, that is good for a player that young, but it isn't superlative in the bigger picture.

 

[Bun]