Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[Spark]

Would be interested to look at Tendulkar's conversion rate and average after passing 20. My guess is that it's unusually good amongst his contemporaries.

 

[Sanz]

5.5 in Test, 8.1 in ODIs

 

[honestbharani]

100/inning

tendulkar 5.68
daylight 5.85
hayden 6.13
kallis 6.15
sangakarra 6.5
ponting 6.69
jayawardene 6.78
lara 6.8
sehwag 6.8

so tendulkar is head and shoulders above even the best modern batsman for 100/innings which is not a function of longevity but just a function of how good you are. In fact longevity just makes it harder.

also he holds a bunch of time-constrained records esp in ODI cricket like most runs in a year, in a WC, most tons in a WC, most tons in a year etc.

im sure there are more but just saying.

edit: also he debuted at 16 had he debuted at 19-20 like the rest of these guys, he'd be averaging 60, but we can play what if's all day.
edit2: and he'd be averaging 47 in ODI, hello mr. richards?

5.7 to 6.1 is daylight??? ITSTL...

 

[Son Of Coco]

His career will only be complete when he has played a test for Australia.

 

[Bun]

His career will only be complete when he has played a test for Australia.

 

[smash84]

100/inning

tendulkar 5.68
daylight 5.85
hayden 6.13
kallis 6.15
sangakarra 6.5
ponting 6.69
jayawardene 6.78
lara 6.8
sehwag 6.8

?

The stat is impressive but I wouldn't call a difference of 0.17. There are 3 other batsmen within a 0.5 inning difference. Hardly daylight

 

[Bun]

The stat is impressive but I wouldn't call a difference of 0.17. There are 3 other batsmen within a 0.5 inning difference. Hardly daylight

0.5 multipled by 50 give 25. In other words, if all those batsmen were to score 50 hundreds, Tendulkar would've done it the faster by 25 innings. That is quite some daylight afaic.

 

[Spark]

Is that possibly because he's more likely to make a hundred if he gets a start?

 

[Bun]

Is that possibly because he's more likely to make a hundred if he gets a start?

 

[Spark]

Well...? Yes, no, maybe?

 

[Kylez]

When he averages 99.94 +

 

[smash84]

0.5 multipled by 50 give 25. In other words, if all those batsmen were to score 50 hundreds, Tendulkar would've done it the faster by 25 innings. That is quite some daylight afaic.

If I understand the stat correctly then it is inning/100 right? The number of innings it requires a player to make a 100? Right? Or is this stat interpreted differently?

 

[marc71178]

0.5 multipled by 50 give 25. In other words, if all those batsmen were to score 50 hundreds, Tendulkar would've done it the faster by 25 innings. That is quite some daylight afaic.

Or more likely he'll have played against BanZim more often (which is incidentally the case - remove BanZim and he's 6.21 against Hayden's 6.29)

 

[hang on]

out of curiosity, why would one remove zimbabwe and bangladesh?

i would wager that the zimbabwe attack of the 90s and early 00s were comparable to the windian and kiwi attacks of today.

 

[hang on]

i remember how spectacular hayden was. at one point, around the time he had played around 90 innings, he had scored 20 centuries (the numbers might be marginally off, but bear with me!). quite incredible!

also, i remember that gavaskar had scored 20 100s after 50 tests. another incredible statistic.

 

[centurymaker]

I think even now he's only playing at 75-80% of his best.

 

[Kylez]

I think even now he's only playing at 75-80% of his best.

 

[Bun]

or more likely he'll have played against banzim more often (which is incidentally the case - remove banzim and he's 6.21 against hayden's 6.29)

 

[Bun]

If I understand the stat correctly then it is inning/100 right? The number of innings it requires a player to make a 100? Right? Or is this stat interpreted differently?

Yes

 

[Top_Cat]

0.5 multipled by 50 give 25. In other words, if all those batsmen were to score 50 hundreds, Tendulkar would've done it the faster by 25 innings. That is quite some daylight afaic.

Reckon the data could do with some serious weighting. The raw innings/100 ratio is really prone to bias.