-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*** Official *** Tendulkar criticism thread
- Thread starter ankitj
- Start date
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
I don't think the fact that he hasn't scored a 250+ score matters much. Its incredibly rare that a team ever needs someone to score more than 200 or so. From what I recall the vast majority of 250+ scores happen in seemingly dead matches or when one side is massively ahead of the other. It shows amazing concentration and stamina obviously but I don't think its ever all that beneficial to a side.
Being able to reach 200 is all you really need.
Being able to reach 200 is all you really need.
Definitely disagree with that... SRT was on top of the world from around 1996-2002... IIRC he averaged 60+ every year from 97 to 2001
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
ya true...chenged point number 2..
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
When I wrote the post I didn't know myself whether I was being sarcastic or I was just touching upon my wet dreams about my favorite batsman which he hasn't been able to achieve - probably a mixture of both.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
I think the point about him being less compact in match situations than Gavaskar or Boycott is true though only to be expected. He's been a far more naturally attacking bat than either so he's fallen to the odd ill-advised stroke of flamboyance over the years quite regularly.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Tendulkar's highest ever ICC Test batting ranking is 898 achieved against lowly Zimbabwe in 2002. That places him in 26th place all time and behind the following contemporaries:
=3 Ricky Ponting 942
=6 Kumar Sangakkara 938
=10 Jacques Kallis 935
=10 Matthew Hayden 935
12 Mohammed Yousuf 933
=17 Michael Hussey 921
23 Brian Lara 911
24 Kevin Pietersen 909
25 Shivnarine Chanderpaul 901
---------------------------------------------
26 Sachin Tendulkar 898
No one else inside the top 100 has achieved their peak ranking against a country with under 10 wins.
=3 Ricky Ponting 942
=6 Kumar Sangakkara 938
=10 Jacques Kallis 935
=10 Matthew Hayden 935
12 Mohammed Yousuf 933
=17 Michael Hussey 921
23 Brian Lara 911
24 Kevin Pietersen 909
25 Shivnarine Chanderpaul 901
---------------------------------------------
26 Sachin Tendulkar 898
No one else inside the top 100 has achieved their peak ranking against a country with under 10 wins.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
When the so-called experts say that he is a naturally attacking batsman and therefore he should always play positively is what irritates me the most. I personally think that he is quite equipped to play both the Gavaskar-type game, or the Lara-type. According to the match situation (depending on whether we are playing to win, or playing to save) he should choose his game. The so-called experts want him to always play a game that is in between the Gavaskar-type and the Lara-type - opining that is what his natural game is. I personally disagree with them.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I think it is pretty obvious he is mostly a compact test batsman with the very odd attacking knock thrown in... While he is no Dravid, he is no Lara or Ponting either in that respect. He falls somewhere in the middle..
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I was just talking about what he is/was capable of. I personally think that he is certainly capable of playing both the Dravid game and the Lara game if he wants to.
Just expanding on my point: there are 2 types of batsmen who strike around 55 in test cricket. One, who always strike at around 50-60 in general. And two, who sometimes strike at around 40 and sometimes at around 70 thereby achieving an overall strike rate of 55. Tendulkar is/was capable of being a batsman of the 2nd kind IMO.
...the thing he has done so successfully in ODIs...has shifted gears at will throughout his career...
Arachnodouche
International Captain
..except when he nears those hundreds. Funny quirk for a guy who's scored so many of them.
I think he's been the epitome of Test match batsmanship for the two odd years before this past one. Immaculately controlled almost to the point of passing under the radar somewhat yet capable of unfurling some awe inspiring strokes from time to time. Mind, that is in no way an endorsement of him choosing his ODIs as and when the whim strikes, but that's not the issue here.
I think he's been the epitome of Test match batsmanship for the two odd years before this past one. Immaculately controlled almost to the point of passing under the radar somewhat yet capable of unfurling some awe inspiring strokes from time to time. Mind, that is in no way an endorsement of him choosing his ODIs as and when the whim strikes, but that's not the issue here.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I only wish if Tendulkar in his prime ('97-'01) had the maturity of Tendulkar of ('09-'10)!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
And the batsmen who actually strike at 70 have had the ability to strike at 50-60 (Tendulkar SR) at times and at 80-90 (Sehwag-Jayasuriya like SR) at times... Frankly, I don't think there is any batsman who always stuck at the same SR. Rahul has had the ability to shift between striking at 30-40 and 60-70 and hence has a career SR around 40..
Basically, I think every batsman has the ability to play innings 10-15 above/below their SR.. And FTR, I don't think Sachin has ever played an innings to sustain 70+ SRs like Lara/Ponting have done. That is just their game and this is his. Not that there is anything wrong with it.
Last edited:
OhhhhMattyMatty
Cricket Spectator
His bouncy pads and poor umpiring have saved him against spinners numerous times. He is actually not that strong against decent spin and has relied on just pressing forward with bat and pad together for 20 years. He's the sole reason the BCCI won't take on UDRS!
Arachnodouche
International Captain
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
O God! I was talking about what I 'personally' think Tendulkar is capable of, and hasn't done in his career with much consistency...not about what he has done regularly. This is supposed to be a Tendulkar 'criticism' thread ffs!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
lol.. it wasn't criticism..
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Mine was, you probably didn't get my point.
My whole point was that Tendulkar doesn't adjust his mode of play according to the situation in test matches as much as he does in ODIs - which I personally think he is quite capable of doing in test matches too.
I would 'personally' like him to change his game depending on whether we are playing to save or we are playing to win. When we are playing to save he should play in the Gavaskar-mode, and when we are playing to win he should play in the Lara-mode. Career SRs don't matter to me much, playing the right game at the right time does. I wouldn't be happier personally if his career SR moves from 55 to 65. Rather I shall be happier to see him play like Lara or Richards when we are in commanding position in the 3rd day of a test, and to see him play like Gavaskar when we are in a **** position in the 5th day of a test, for example. The key point being that I 'personally' think that he is one of the very very few batsmen to have ever come to be capable of that.