Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[Cevno]

List of youngest debutants -

Records | Test matches | Individual records (captains, players, umpires) | Youngest players | ESPN Cricinfo

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

Actually the chance of suffering a loss of confidence and losing your game and all skills not getting developed as they should under pressure are more likely to happen because of debuting earlier than acclimatising due to starting early.

Irfan Pathan , Parthiv Patel,laxman sivaramakrishnan and Piyush Chawla are classic examples in India alone.

At the same time due to money,attention and fame you could go astray too . Not too mention how it affects the motivation and desire when you are 38 to keep at the top and the toll it takes on the body and mind.

 

[Spark]

Here is another example of why citing a large gap in international hundreds as proof of significant superiority is flawed

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This is the end of the Aus 07-08 season. Ponting has 60 international hundreds, Tendulkar has 81. At the time, who would I have called the greater batsman? Ponting. Have I changed my view since? Yes. Would a lot of people have agreed with me at the time? Yes. Yet Tendulkar has 21 more hundreds. So it's not even inarguable that Tendulkar is the best, let alone that he is significantly better - at the time. So what does that tell you about the "he has many more hundreds" argument? It tells me that it isn't that significant, after all, a lot of quite good players have less than 21 international hundreds.

EDIT: Cevno, that's precisely why Tendulkar would not have debuted at 16 here.

 

[Bun]

Actually the chance of suffering a loss of confidence and losing your game and all skills not getting developed as they should under pressure are more likely to happen because of debuting earlier than acclimatising due to starting early.

Irfan Pathan , Parthiv Patel,laxman sivaramakrishnan and Piyush Chawla are classic examples in India alone.

At the same time due to money,attention and fame you could go astray too . Not too mention how it affects the motivation and desire when you are 38 to keep at the top and the toll it takes on the body and mind.

Exactly!

Even Ponting who debuted early, took some time to find his feet, and was early in his career known to be something of an enfant terrible...

Not many 16yr olds have gone to make 100 international hundreds..

 

[Ikki]

Difference between him and others is monumental (in terms of No. of 100s).

Tendulkar has 99 International 100s, His closest competitor has 69.

He has played more because he could.

What in the hell does that mean? Ponting has been pretty much an ever-present since his debut. The reason he isn't closer is because Tendulkar has played more - yes, because he debuted at 16 whereas Ponting debuted at 20.

List of youngest debutants -

Records | Test matches | Individual records (captains, players, umpires) | Youngest players | ESPN Cricinfo

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

Hanif?
Harbhajan?
Mushtaq Mohammad?
Waqar?
Wasim?
Imran Khan?
Chandra?
Saqlain?

If anything that list demonstrates the point brought up earlier. Lots of the names there are from the subcontinent. There are only 2 Australians: Garrett who debuted in 1877 and Craig in 1953.

 

[Spark]

Exactly!

Even Ponting who debuted early, took some time to find his feet, and was early in his career known to be something of an enfant terrible...

Not many 16yr olds have gone to make 100 international hundreds..

Hooray. So why do you insist on equating a 20 year old Ponting to a 20 year old Tendulkar?

 

[Bun]

that's precisely why Tendulkar would not have debuted at 16 here.

Had Bradman been born in India in 1900s, he may not have even got enough opportunities to do what he did. What an irrelevant argument??!!

 

[Sanz]

Perhaps I over-generalized, but would you say that that is the exception or the norm?

But Tendulkar is an exception, he had all the qualities of an exceptional batsman from a very early age. He was ready to play International Cricket @ 16, those who played with him or watched him in 1989 will tell you that it took him 1 Test match to figure out International Cricket. There was a reason he made his debut 3-4 year ahead of his friend and classmate Vinod Kambli (who was also a child prodigy and also averaged in 50s in his career) who was more flamboyant and considered by many a more talented player.

So to make a point that Tendulkar would have taken another 3-4 years after making his debut @ 19 to adjust to International Cricket and hence would have averaged in 30s-40s etc for another 3-4 years is really a very very silly assumption. And I don't want to be disrespectful to your opinions but that is really laughable.

 

[GotSpin]

Actually the chance of suffering a loss of confidence and losing your game and all skills not getting developed as they should under pressure are more likely to happen because of debuting earlier than acclimatising due to starting early.

Disagree. It took three years for Steve Waugh to score his maiden test century and find his feet in international cricket. Imagine if he'd started at a younger age and had the opportunity for an extended career

 

[Bun]

Disagree. It took three years for Steve Waugh to score his maiden test century and find his feet in international cricket. Imagine if he'd started at a younger age and had the opportunity for an extended career

for starters, Steve Waugh isn't Sachin Tendulkar

 

[GotSpin]

for starters, Steve Waugh isn't Sachin Tendulkar

Couldn't give a flying ****

 

[Cevno]

What in the hell does that mean? Ponting has been pretty much an ever-present since his debut. The reason he isn't closer is because Tendulkar has played more - yes, because he debuted at 16 whereas Ponting debuted at 20.

That is untrue as you already demonstrated yourself.

Hanif?
Harbhajan?
Mushtaq Mohammad?
Waqar?
Wasim?
Imran Khan?
Chandra?
Saqlain?

If anything that list demonstrates the point brought up earlier. Lots of the names there are from the subcontinent. There are only 2 Australians: Garrett who debuted in 1877 and Craig in 1953.

Was more talking about early 17's and 16 year olds rather than 18 and near 19 year olds.

And Starting early though may have kept Harbhajan in the game,it would have been better for him to develop his bowling in the domestic scene more early before being sent to the wolves.
I think he lost a bit of the time because of it.

And btw, yes australians don't debut early but then so do not Indian batsman too as you can see.
Pakistan is a different case though.

 

[GotSpin]

That is untrue as you already demonstrated yourself.




Was more talking about early 17's and 16 year olds rather than 18 and near 19 year olds.

And Starting early though may have kept Harbhajan in the game,it would have been better for him to develop his bowling in the domestic scene more early before being sent to the wolves.
I think he lost a bit of the time because of it.

And btw, yes australians don't debut early but then so do not Indian batsman too as you can see.
Pakistan is a different case though.

Bhaji was fine until he started playing too many limited overs matches. Got nothing to do with it

 

[Ikki]

Disagree. It took three years for Steve Waugh to score his maiden test century and find his feet in international cricket. Imagine if he'd started at a younger age and had the opportunity for an extended career

It took 4 years for Sobers to hit his first 100.

 

[Cevno]

Disagree. It took three years for Steve Waugh to score his maiden test century and find his feet in international cricket. Imagine if he'd started at a younger age and had the opportunity for an extended career

Eh?

It took Suresh Raina precisely one match to get a test hundred.

And same is the case with Rahul Dravid.

What is your point and how is it relevant?

 

[Spark]

Had Bradman been born in India in 1900s, he may not have even got enough opportunities to do what he did. What an irrelevant argument??!!

How is it irrelevant? I'm just saying that no matter how good a player you are, no matter good a player Ponting was at that age more to the point, he would not have debuted. The system here simply would not let him.

But Tendulkar is an exception, he had all the qualities of an exceptional batsman from a very early age. He was ready to play International Cricket @ 16, those who played with him or watched him in 1989 will tell you that it took him 1 Test match to figure out International Cricket. There was a reason he made his debut 3-4 year ahead of his friend and classmate Vinod Kambli (who was also a child prodigy and also averaged in 50s in his career) who was more flamboyant and considered by many a more talented player.

So to make a point that Tendulkar would have taken another 3-4 years after making his debut @ 19 to adjust to International Cricket and hence would have averaged in 30s-40s etc for another 3-4 years is really a very very silly assumption. And I don't want to be disrespectful to your opinions but that is really laughable.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way but I find it equally laughable that one can just chop off three-four years at the beginning of a career and expect the career evolution to be identical.

 

[Sanz]

And what did he average against them? In the 30s, right?

Not everything is measured in Stats and those who watched him bat in Pakistan don't give a **** about it. But averaging 35.83 against the likes of Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir in an away series in a hostile environment, saving a test match and eventually series is no mean achievement.

It is sill 3 times the verage Ricky Ponting made in his first away series

It happens here and there, players have impressive starts but it is simply far from the norm to be one of the best players on debut, especially at the age of 20. It took Tendulkar a while to truly become what he became, in both formats, and "a glimpse of ability" is not what we are discussing here.

Tendulkar is not Norm. He was an exception. It doesn't matter how you try to discuss.

 

[Bun]

How is it irrelevant? I'm just saying that no matter how good a player you are, no matter good a player Ponting was at that age more to the point, he would not have debuted. The system here simply would not let him.
.

Rubbish. You talk as if BCCI was constantly testing out every 16 yr old out there during Tendulkar's debut

 

[Spark]

So would you say that he was one of the best players in the world in his first three years or rather a player with the potential to be one of the best players in the world?

 

[GotSpin]

Eh?

It took Suresh Raina precisely one match to get a test hundred.

And same is the case with Rahul Dravid.

What is your point and how is it relevant?

That I believe it's a massive advantage to make your debut younger

 

[Ikki]

That is untrue as you already demonstrated yourself.

I imagine this was the same way you demonstrated that Bradman wasn't that much better than Tendulkar.

Was more talking about early 17's and 16 year olds rather than 18 and near 19 year olds.

And Starting early though may have kept Harbhajan in the game,it would have been better for him to develop his bowling in the domestic scene more early before being sent to the wolves.
I think he lost a bit of the time because of it.

And btw, yes australians don't debut early but then so do not Indian batsman too as you can see.
Pakistan is a different case though.

Wasim, Waqar and Imran were only a year older than Sobers. Who are you kidding? No one I named was 19. Near 19, like Sobers is near 18 and Tendulkar near 17?

Harbhajan is what he is. He wouldn't have been that much better, regardless IMO. I just put him there because he clearly did better than "not very well".

If anything it's worse to play bowlers younger - they have more strain on their bodies. Anyway, it clearly shows what we've been saying and what Bun has been trying to dance around. In Australia, we don't put players in like that, no matter how superlative they were. Bradman himself was 20 when he debuted.