Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[GotSpin]

On the contrary, had Ponting been an Indian, by all means (looking at his Ind avg) wouldn't have debuted at all.

See you can make all sorts of ifs and buts, had Bradman been born in Yugoslavia instead of Aus, Sachin would've been undoubtedly the Bradman of this sport, Or had Sachin decided to skip his cricketing lessons and instead opted for academics, Ponting would've undoubtedly been the greatest bat ever etc blah blah blah....

*Massive brain explosion*

 

[Bun]

Doesn't that negate your own argument that Sachin has these records because he started early?

When in fact even removing those years as you did their he has 46 test and 48 ODI centuries after he turned 20.

So that is 94 centuries . Again far ahead of Ponting who also started at 20 which was your main argument.

How many matches have Sachin played for those 94?

 

[Cevno]

There is no way that Tendulkar would have debuted at 16. It's just not the Australian thing to do. Even the Ponting/Clarke cases of someone being rushed through the academy/FC system before their FC performances fully justified their inclusion on their own is extremely unusual.

Not many Indian batsman debut at 16 to, but Tendulkar did because he was special.

Also to last till 38 at the top after debuting at 16 is special.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki's argument is like saying a marathon runner is nowhere good as a 100m dasher because the marathon guy gets more miles to do his running Never mind the fact that the marathon guy, if asked to do a 100m will and have outdone the other chap.

Your analogy is incorrect. It's like talking about 2 guys who cover more ground when one guy has already been running for an hour before the other guy puts his shoes on.

Doesn't that negate your own argument that Sachin has these records because he started early?

When in fact even removing those years as you did their he has 46 test and 48 ODI centuries after he turned 20.

So that is 94 centuries . Again far ahead of Ponting who also started at 20 which was your main argument.

How does it? As if Tendulkar is going to debut at 20 and suddenly score those 100s? Do you ever take into account the fact that debuting early benefitted Tendulkar? You know...like getting used to the standard and then having 20+ years to build a superlative record?

 

[Bun]

*Massive brain explosion*

Yeah, only 2 posts late Welcome to the gang

 

[Bun]

How does it? As if Tendulkar is going to debut at 20 and suddenly score those 100s? Do you ever take into account the fact that debuting early benefitted Tendulkar? You know...like getting used to the standard and then having 20+ years to build a superlative record?

Mike Hussey says hi

 

[Cevno]

Not many survive after debuting at 16! He did.

And even less survive 21 + years at the top and have the motivation to still go on.

 

[Spark]

Mike Hussey says hi

Errr. After scoring the mere matter of something like ten or fifteen thousand first class runs or something monstrous like that.

I feel that you guys are badly misrepresenting the debate. Of course debuting at 16 is incredibly special, and of course having a 22+ year long career is incredibly special. But you cannot deny that a significant contribution to his statistical superiority in terms of runs scored - and remember that not long ago Ponting was on track to surpass his Test tally before he even retired! - is due to the simple fact that having debuted at a significantly younger age he was able to begin the truly fruitful part of his career, as an established, seasoned Test batsman at a markedly younger age than Ponting was able to do the same.

 

[Ikki]

*Massive brain explosion*

I'm about __ close to adding Bun to ignore. I got too many assignments and not enough self-control for this nonsense.

Errr. After scoring the mere matter of something like ten or fifteen thousand first class runs or something monstrous like that.

Yeah...you never know though. During the 90s we had an incredible pool of talent. Tendulkar may have never debuted if he was Aussie and he would have had to come in like Hussey.

 

[Cevno]

How does it? As if Tendulkar is going to debut at 20 and suddenly score those 100s? Do you ever take into account the fact that debuting early benefitted Tendulkar? You know...like getting used to the standard and then having 20+ years to build a superlative record?

Now that is serious clutching at straws and shifting of the argument and the goal posts,which you always do.

Don't you think starting at 16 took toll not only on his records and more importantly at the same time also on his body and mental state making it even tougher to rejuvenate himself at 38 and still be on the top?

 

[Bun]

Errr. After scoring the mere matter of something like ten or fifteen thousand first class runs or something monstrous like that.

I feel that you guys are badly misrepresenting the debate. Of course debuting at 16 is incredibly special, and of course having a 22+ year long career is incredibly special. But you cannot deny that a significant contribution to his statistical superiority in terms of runs scored - and remember that not long ago Ponting was on track to surpass his Test tally before he even retired! - is due to the simple fact that having debuted at a significantly younger age he was able to begin the truly fruitful part of his career, as an established, seasoned Test batsman at a markedly younger age than Ponting was able to do the same.

16-21 gives Sachin 5 years, and given what he was averaging at the tmie of his selection into the Indian team, he'd probably been averaging mid 60s or even 70s by 21.

 

[Cevno]

How many matches have Sachin played for those 94?

397 ODI'S and 152 tests.

 

[Spark]

16-21 gives Sachin 5 years, and given what he was averaging at the tmie of his selection into the Indian team, he'd probably been averaging mid 60s or even 70s by 21.

...

Just no. Tests are a massive step-up in quality in demands. It takes time to get suited to Test cricket, you cannot expect to debut at a young age and suddenly start bashing the likes of Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and McGrath around the park for years on end.

And lol Ikki. Imagine if Tendulkar had been Lehmann'd/Law'd/Love'd/Hodge'd

 

[Cevno]

Errr. After scoring the mere matter of something like ten or fifteen thousand first class runs or something monstrous like that.

I feel that you guys are badly misrepresenting the debate. Of course debuting at 16 is incredibly special, and of course having a 22+ year long career is incredibly special. But you cannot deny that a significant contribution to his statistical superiority in terms of runs scored - and remember that not long ago Ponting was on track to surpass his Test tally before he even retired! - is due to the simple fact that having debuted at a significantly younger age he was able to begin the truly fruitful part of his career, as an established, seasoned Test batsman at a markedly younger age than Ponting was able to do the same.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...eer-now-complete-post2527214.html#post2527214

 

[Ikki]

Now that is serious clutching at straws and shifting of the argument and the goal posts,which you always do.

Don't you think starting at 16 took toll not only on his records and more importantly at the same time also on his body and mental state making it even tougher to rejuvenate himself at 38 and still be on the top?

It doesn't take a toll on any of his records being discussed here. They are aggregates. Do you know what you are talking about?

If Tendulkar debuted later, let's say 20, then he has 4 less years to acclimatise to Tests. Yes, his average may have been higher but it would also mean he'd have 4 less of his peak years at a peak age and he'd have less 100s.

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (even taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point. One can fathom him having the most 100s because he is better than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between him and the 2nd, 3rd, etc, is too much to suggest it is on ability. The guy played much more than others. Get over it. I know you'd love to believe he is that much better than the others but he ain't. Sorry!

 

[Bun]

...

Just no. Tests are a massive step-up in quality in demands. It takes time to get suited to Test cricket, you cannot expect to debut at a young age and suddenly start bashing the likes of Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and McGrath around the park for years on end.

And lol Ikki. Imagine if Tendulkar had been Lehmann'd/Law'd/Love'd/Hodge'd

Well if he could do that at 16, surely can expect him to do at 21.

 

[Spark]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...eer-now-complete-post2527214.html#post2527214

How do you not understand this simple point?

If we take roughly equivalent points of their careers, then:

Debuting: Tendulkar is 16, Ponting is 20.
Truly settled as a Test player, Tendulkar is 19-21, Ponting is 23-25.

So trying to say that as a stage of career evolution, Tendulkar is 20 is the same as Ponting at 20 is silly.

 

[Spark]

Well if he could do that at 16, surely can expect him to do at 21.

Wait, Tendulkar was averaging 60+ for several years in Test cricket in his teens?

This is news to me.

Here is the point. If you "normalize" their careers, to assume that they both debut at the same age - let's say 20 - and then follow career evolutions similar to their actual career evolutions, then it's not the first four years of his career you cut out. It's going to be more like the last four - although I'm not claiming for one moment that his renaissance is due to him debuting earlier, I'm just saying that him debuting at 20 will result in his "settled" part of his career being shorter, not his "settling" stage which is a necessary process for every Test batsman (after all, Mike Hussey's Test average took something of a walloping, didn't it?)

 

[Bun]

397 ODI'S and 152 tests.

Thanks, massive! And still going strong.

People are just jealous Cevno. When they know for clear their idols aren't going to break Sachin's records, resorting to all these ridiculous "ifs and buts".

Just to clarify, tendulkar averages 60+ in Australia (despite having played a full series before he finished puberty). Imagine had he been an Australian, with access to bowlers much lesser than calibre of Aussie bowlers, and playing half of his career over there, what he'd have averaged!! I know people might argue Tendulkar had to face both Warne and McGrath only in 99, but the average Aus attack he faced and scored against was better than most of the world attacks people like Hayden, Punter had to face.

 

[Sanz]

I find it very difficult to believe he would have straight away averaged 60 for a long period immediately had he debuted at 20. It always takes time to get settled into Test cricket. That I believe is Ikki's argument, the extra four years that Tendulkar had allowed him to get settled into Test cricket at a far younger age than Ponting did. Because he debuted at a younger age.

That is such a silly assumption and silly point to make. Sunny Gavaskar, Javed Miandad, Azhar all were scoring heavily and averaging in 50-60s from the first test they played.