Things that will happen before Sachin's 100th 100

[Arachnodouche]

You can only play what you're put up against. Even discounting the 100s against rank minnows, he probably has in excess of eighty international hundreds, a mind bogglingly large figure. Yes, it's a made up statistic, but it certainly isn't something to scoff at OR be used to downgrade his place in the pantheon of all time greats.

Before this past season, he was effortlessly collecting runs, stroking them at what I'm guessing must've easily been a SR of 60. Hardly the stonewaller then.

 

[turnstyle]

You can only play what you're put up against.

Oh, where do i start.

 

[ankitj]

I don't quite understand the nature of your posting. I made quite a few points in my initial post which were ignored by you and another couple of posters in the rush to go on about matters I had not so much as mentioned such as the media and whether or no he was succumbing to the pressure.

If you want to have a reasonable back and forth about the points I have made then respond properly to my posts. Don't just bring up points out of context and in a totally random way that makes no sense at all.

Only post #582 was a direct respond to you.

Post #583 was sort of an addendum that you could criticize media and fans instead of Tendulkar for all they hype around 100th 100.

Post #585 was picking up from Contra's point about the action (or lack of it) from BCCI/selectors would have remained same even if Tendulkar got the 100th.

Sorry, I was meandering a bit. But you don't have to assume everything was in response to you.

 

[uvelocity]

post number 604: Kohli will be dropped from the test team

 

[ankitj]

You can only play what you're put up against. Even discounting the 100s against rank minnows, he probably has in excess of eighty international hundreds, a mind bogglingly large figure. Yes, it's a made up statistic, but it certainly isn't something to scoff at OR be used to downgrade his place in the pantheon of all time greats.

Before this past season, he was effortlessly collecting runs, stroking them at what I'm guessing must've easily been a SR of 60. Hardly the stonewaller then.

Was also the second highest run getter in the World cup. Was very close to Dilshan's aggregate.

 

[turnstyle]

It's amusing to note how quickly those who can't handle any sort of balanced and objective assessment of Tendulkar rush in to twist the words of anyone they see as a dissenter. Clearly Tendulkar has become for some here a sort of idol who must be defended at all costs. How sad.

It's just an Indian thing. I love a good comments section after a Tendulkar/Dravid/VVS article.

 

[smash84]

It's amusing to note how quickly those who can't handle any sort of balanced and objective assessment of Tendulkar rush in to twist the words of anyone they see as a dissenter. Clearly Tendulkar has become for some here a sort of idol who must be defended at all costs. How sad.

Now as for my actual post - as opposed to what some rather excitable persons imagined I wrote -, firstly, I have not once mentioned Indian media or blamed Indian media pressure on Tendulkar's failure to get to this milestone. Nor have I claimed any special knowledge of "how Indian cricket works". It is not necessary to know how Indian cricket works because the facts speak for themselves, and an intelligent observer should be able to decide for himself regardless of whether he is located in Manchester or Mumbai.

My critique was not about the media; rather I stated pretty plainly my belief that the milestone itself is completely artificial. No one was adding together Test centuries and ODI centuries before, as if they had the same value. ODI centuries, of which Sachin has no less than five against Kenya and Namibia, and another five I think against weak Zimbabwe attacks, have far less value and thus this 100 centuries hype is fundamentally flawed.

I did not mention the Indian media or blame their pressure on his failure to get it because for me it is quite immaterial whether the hype about this fake milestone leading to the "pressure" emanated from the media or not: the fact is it is a completely spurious achievement.

And for those trying to play the "it's not only an Indian obsession" card: pull the other one. Firstly, India has form. Imran made a very perceptive comment some time ago with respect to Tendulkar's quest and implicitly or perhaps explicitly name checking Richards when he said that real champions don't need to compile meaningless personal milestones to persuade others of their greatness: their real achievements speak for themselves. For me, Imran is one of the six or seven greatest cricketers that ever lived, yet the look in his eyes when he (or any other bowler from that era) talks about bowling to Richards tells me all I need to know about how truly great the master blaster was. He is great precisely because he does not need to pad out his stats with four meaningless ODI centuries against Kenya to prove it.

Yet Indians never get the point. Perhaps because they are so hopeless at sport in general - the country in the world with the lowest number of total Olympic medals per capita - they somehow lose all perspective when they have someone they see as a champion and succumb to the all-too human failing of making up for their failures in other sporting areas by artificially buffing him up - but their proselytism inevitably has the opposite effect.

The whole world knew that Kapil Dev was a great bowler and great allrounder, but only India would have allowed him to go one for so many matches when he was clearly past his prime and taking wickets at an inefficient rate that would not have justified his place in the team were he not Kapil (and keeping out a young Srinath who at the time was bowling beautifully) just so that he could break Richard Hadlee's record.

As if the aggregate for most Test wickets meant sweet f**k all outside the context! So what happened when Kapil eventually overtook Hadlee? It only served to highlight just how incomparably superior the New Zealander was, striking at something like six or seven runs a wicket (I'm typing from memory so could be wrong here) cheaper and with a far superior strike rate.

It is an Indian problem because Indians like the posters who have just responded to me do not seem to understand sport and what constitutes true sporting greatness! You do not become a sporting legend by double entry bookkeeping. An accountant might have advised Kapil that by breaking Hadlee's record he would fulfil all the criteria to recognized as the best, but for those who know and love the game it actually proved the opposite and ruined any sort of case he might have had for seriously belonging to the debate involving Imran, Botham and Hadlee about the great allrounders of that era.

This is because by the time he had acquired his fool's gold his stats, and more importantly the memory people had of him in his sad closing years, made it look like he had been a hack all along and not the top class new ball bowler - if a significant step below the above-mentioned three - that he had been in his prime!

Similarly Tendulkar is in danger of tarnishing his own considerable achievements in pursuit of the fool's gold of a quite meaningless personal stat which I can tell you now is not even taken particularly seriously outside his homeland. There is a huge difference between lazy journalists filing copy they know will play well with diaspora readers when India is on tour and genuine interest in say England or Australia in some of the more arcane details of the Indian quest to prove that they have produced the second-greatest or even greatest batsman of all times. In reality one of Tendulkar's own teammates during his Test career has better claim to that title,and this inglorious quest of the last year or so has if anything only served to underscore the fact that Tendulkar has actually gone backwards in the second half of his career. If he had trusted his instincts and really gone for it after the glorious burst of his prime years, he would not perhaps have the stats he has today, but would be remembered far more favourably than the play-it-by-the-percentages player he has been for at least the past decade.

Dude, you do have a gift for good writing (even if a tad harsh at times)

P.S. Ankit to add that I love long posts. Yes, I do

 

[ankitj]

P.S. Ankit to add that I love long posts. Yes, I do

Long and rough. That's how you like it apparently.

 

[Satguru]

I disagree with this post on so many different levels. Yes the Indian public loves its records and its milestones, but attributing Sachin's failure to solely the pressure of this milestone is so wrong. You are seriously short changing the Aussie and the English bowlers with your post here. They have bowled brilliantly and Sachin has been caught in between attack and defense.

The line about playing for personal records is probably the most stupid line I have ever read on CW. Really, with no knowledge of his motivation other than what the crappy media has thrown at you, how could you come to that conclusion based on his last 30 innings. If he had retired before these 30 innings would you have put him up on a pedestal.

He has always had a problem in the 90s all through his career, nothing to do with the 99 centuries. I recall in 2006 or 2007 he got out some 7 or 8 times withing touching distance of a hundred. It is a quirk that such a great batsman with so many centuries gets nervous when he is in the 90s but Sach() is life. Using that to say he plays only for personal glory is daft.

A selfish player playing for personal records would not have toughed it out after Tennis Elbow, back problems, a long run drought, the media turning against him. He would have quit to protect his legacy. Not the case here, he toughed it out and had an all time great comeback. Wonder what you would say if he again pushes on after coming out of this slump.

Absolutely AWTA.

 

[Howe_zat]

You can only play what you're put up against. Even discounting the 100s against rank minnows, he probably has in excess of eighty international hundreds, a mind bogglingly large figure. Yes, it's a made up statistic, but it certainly isn't something to scoff at OR be used to downgrade his place in the pantheon of all time greats.

Before this past season, he was effortlessly collecting runs, stroking them at what I'm guessing must've easily been a SR of 60. Hardly the stonewaller then.

This phrase annoys me. It isn't "made up". It's a fact.

Or are you suggesting that the majority of statistics just sort of grow of their own accord?

 

[four_or_six]

Cricketweb will agree, unanimously, the order of greatness of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting.

 

[Spikey]

my beautiful thread is being crapped on pretty badly.

 

[uvelocity]

spikey to start a 50 page thread

 

[NUFAN]

Cronulla Sharks win a premiership.

 

[ankitj]

Rajnikanth will fail to do something.

 

[Daemon]

copy of chuck norris facts

 

[Contra]

It's amusing to note how quickly those who can't handle any sort of balanced and objective assessment of Tendulkar rush in to twist the words of anyone they see as a dissenter. Clearly Tendulkar has become for some here a sort of idol who must be defended at all costs. How sad.

Now as for my actual post - as opposed to what some rather excitable persons imagined I wrote -, firstly, I have not once mentioned Indian media or blamed Indian media pressure on Tendulkar's failure to get to this milestone. Nor have I claimed any special knowledge of "how Indian cricket works". It is not necessary to know how Indian cricket works because the facts speak for themselves, and an intelligent observer should be able to decide for himself regardless of whether he is located in Manchester or Mumbai.

Did I say you blamed the media? The second part of the post was a general comment (in fact I followed up from Ankit's point). We can't handle balanced assessments? rofl, your post contains more garbage than the bin in my kitchen. Did I say you claimed any special knowledge of how Indian cricket works? My post was as simple as it gets: you referenced about Nasser Hussain saying how if Tendulkar got his 100th 100 in England it would make our selectors forget all the bad parts of the tour and I said that is absolute BS. And that is what I meant when I said "people who think like that don't know how Indian cricket works". Our selectors would have done the same thing had Sachin got his 100 as they are currently. It's as simple as that.

"Indians don't understand sporting greatness" rofl.. can't bother responding to the rest of your post. You prefer Viv over Tendulkar and don't like the idea of 100 100s, we get it. You should just say this upfront instead of linking it to other aspects which you don't even know how they work.

The most ironic part is where you claim about him going on for personal records and whatnot and then suggest that he should play like how he did in the 90's even if it meant lesser numbers. In case you haven't noticed but Tendulkar has been way more beneficial to India in his "accumulation" style of play than he would have been had he played like he did in the 90's. Not to mention Tendulkar can't just automatically start playing like a 25 year old, he's much older, there are some shots (especially after the tennis elbow injury) that he's not as comfortable playing as he was in the past. And lastly we've seen another ATG player "stick to his game" in Ricky Ponting, and we all know how crap he's been over the last few years due to his refusal to adapt.

 

[Cevno]

Rajnikanth will fail to do something.

 

[ankitj]

For sake of Spikey's healthy thread, I request moderators to move last 2-3 pages to my thread http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/55913-official-tendulkar-criticism-thread.html

 

[honestbharani]

This period where Tendulkar did bat within himself also coincided with arguably India's most successful period in Test cricket. His job is to help India win games of cricket.

I don't think that you can mix up how Tendulkar has been travelling over the past year, with what he did from 2006 onwards after his form slumps earlier in the 2000s. I didn't think that there was much different between late Lara and late Tendulkar, both weren't as dominant in their style as what they were in their prime, showed glimpses of what they did in their prime when the feeling took them, and were still or nearly as productive as their younger peers.

I will try to stay out of the Sachin debate but I do think there was a MARKED difference in the Lara batted in the 2000s and Sachin did. And Lara was batting as fluently as he always did in that period. If anything, I think I saw more 6s from him during that time than in his prime. As Ian Chappel noted in a recent column, he always was someone who would pick and choose his attack and defence periods in a test inning, and he never really differed from that approach, be it in the 90s or the noughties...