Sachin Tendulkar to retire

[Shri]

Yeah **** off Ikki.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

It really does boggle my mind that Tendulkar started his career when Imran and Hadlee were still playing. Those guys just feel so ancient and mythical to me, having never seen them play...

I'm just old enough to remember Khan. He was enough to turn any man, I tell ya!!

(not me though, obviously)

 

[Jono]

Sachin Tendulkar being discussed on Q&A on ABC. Cop that Lara.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar's Test debut was November 15 1989. He was not considered a part of the 80s brigade. By the end of 92, he'd played more in the 90s than the 80s. Surely, he's done enough in his career to not have to go to these lengths.

Come on, it was pretty obvious what he meant was that those guys looked to Tendulkar as a formidable opponent and one of the prize scalps even as a teen. That's quite remarkable

 

[CricAddict]

Not too much is made of him as the guy who took on all the greats he met head on, and tried to dominate them. But he did try, and for a kid, that's something!

Actually, a lot had been made of him facing the Pakistani attack as a 16-year old..

I had commented about the Ganguly-Laxman-Shastri show yesterday and have one more info from it in this regard.

This is what Ravi Shastri said about Sachin: When Shastri was playing with Sachin, Sachin being a short man, whenever he saw any tall fast bowler bowling at him, he will tell that he wanted to dominate the bowler. It affected his ego that a tall guy could dominate a short guy. So though Sachin never sledged, he did it in a subtle way. He will hit a cracking four and hold the pose a little longer to the tall fast bowlers to indicate to them who the boss was.

 

[smash84]

I still remember the edition of The Cricketer in Pakistan which came after the 1992 world cup. It featured a double page poster of Sachin Tendulkar in the 1992 WC gear. Was touted as a genius in that edition

 

[Ikki]

I am not saying he was a 80s man. But the 80s men like Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil, Marshall, Border were still around in 92, and they considered him a firm fixture of the international circuit. That's what I meant.

You're back-tracking on your hyperbole.

"By the end of 92, he was considered by the 80 greats to be firmly a member of their times."

When Imran and the boys get together they're not reminiscing about Tendulkar since at most they played a series against him and he wasn't anywhere near their level. The same goes for Lara, whom you could say the same thing about if we simply looked at strict dates.

Do you really think the aforementioned cricketers, who were at the very end of their own careers and who may have played 3 Tests against him then looked at him as someone 'firmly from their time'? It's absurd.

Come on, it was pretty obvious what he meant was that those guys looked to Tendulkar as a formidable opponent and one of the prize scalps even as a teen. That's quite remarkable

Even on that level it's false. Tendulkar's claim to fame was that he debuted so young and was actually pretty decent. It was clear that eventually he'd be a star. But he was not a formidable opponent at that time. By the end of 92, when basically all those greats retired, Tendulkar averaged 37.41 and had at most played 1 series against them. That Shastri at the time was one of their leading scorers shows how weak that batting line-up was - and he was one of several batsmen averaging more.

None of this is meant to detract from the guy; he turned into something truly special. But let's not stretch it into nonsense.

 

[harsh.ag]

You're back-tracking on your hyperbole.

"By the end of 92, he was considered by the 80 greats to be firmly a member of their times."

When Imran and the boys get together they're not reminiscing about Tendulkar since at most they played a series against him and he wasn't anywhere near their level. The same goes for Lara, whom you could say the same thing about if we simply looked at strict dates.

Do you really think the aforementioned cricketers, who were at the very end of their own careers and who may have played 3 Tests against him then looked at him as someone 'firmly from their time'? It's absurd..

I am not back-tracking. I meant the same thing when I wrote:
"By the end of 92, he was considered by the 80 greats to be firmly a member of their times."; and
"I am not saying he was a 80s man. But the 80s men like Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil, Marshall, Border were still around in 92, and they considered him a firm fixture of the international circuit."

A member does not have to be a great. All those who are firm fixtures in an international side are members of the time. Would you say the batsmen averaging less than 37 but who had been playing for 6-7 years were not members of those times simply because Imran & Co. don't about them when they sit down to reminisce?

And Ikki, I have said it before, do not speak to me or about me in this manner of "hyperbole", "nonsense", "stretching it" etc. I don't like it. And I hope the answer from your side to that is not - "tough".

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're back-tracking on your hyperbole.

"By the end of 92, he was considered by the 80 greats to be firmly a member of their times."

When Imran and the boys get together they're not reminiscing about Tendulkar since at most they played a series against him and he wasn't anywhere near their level. The same goes for Lara, whom you could say the same thing about if we simply looked at strict dates.

Do you really think the aforementioned cricketers, who were at the very end of their own careers and who may have played 3 Tests against him then looked at him as someone 'firmly from their time'? It's absurd.



Even on that level it's false. Tendulkar's claim to fame was that he debuted so young and was actually pretty decent. It was clear that eventually he'd be a star. But he was not a formidable opponent at that time. By the end of 92, when basically all those greats retired, Tendulkar averaged 37.41 and had at most played 1 series against them. That Shastri at the time was one of their leading scorers shows how weak that batting line-up was - and he was one of several batsmen averaging more.

None of this is meant to detract from the guy; he turned into something truly special. But let's not stretch it into nonsense.

Yes let's all just condense it in to an average. Lets ignore the following things which this teenager accomplished in his first few years:

1) Saved a match in Pakistan with a gutsy fifty against Imran, the W's, and Qadir.

2) Demolishes Qadir, one of the world's best spinners, and scores 53 off 18 in an unofficial ODI which stuns onlookers


3) Scores an 88 against Hadlee and misses out on a hundred but makes a big impression on everyone, for someone so incredibly young

4) Saved a match from a dangerous position by scoring a ton in England when all other specialist batsman had fallen

5) Scores 148 glorious runs at Sydney which Benaud describes as one if the best innings he's ever seen

6) Betters that almost immediately by scoring a counter attacking gem at Perth while the rest of our lineup falls like a pack of cards. Everyone pronounces him a genius

7) Scores one of his most gritty and underrated tons, a 111 out if 227 against a lighting quick Donald when yet again, the senior batsmen do ****all.

Honestly I could go on and on... He got so many tough runs in those early years that it left a permanent impression and made clear he was a special player. But no, let's all just condense it down to an average. From all accounts it was very very clear he was going to be an ATG extremely early on, much the same as it was with Warne.

 

[harsh.ag]

The thing that really gets me is that you didn't even comment on the rest of my original post, which I thought was spectacular Seems you only like to pick on anything which you think is wrong (This is for Ikki)

 

[ankitj]

Ikki's multi quote ****fest will help me cop with Tendulkar's retirement. Just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Ikki]

@ harsh.skm

I picked on the whole post, but the part I re-quoted was the part that basically encapsulated your point...which wasn't one worth making if you're simply looking at dates played, instead of looking at whose contemporary certain players are.

You've done the disingenuous thing and argue my point was about his average. It wasn't. It was that he played very little cricket during/with/against the players in question, and what more was at that time renown more for the fact that he was picked so early and did fairly OK. He was not really that good in the broader meaning of the word in relation to his peers, and that's not debatable. That point was to establish that those players, at that time, had very little reason to even think about Tendulkar...let alone think about them as "one of them".

As I said, the idea that Imran and co would describe Tendulkar - a kid they faced for 1 series, a few tests, in which he did OK - a contemporary is absurd. If you don't want to hear that you're being absurd, don't be absurd. Tendulkar was not their contemporary in the meaning that is usually given to that word - i.e. playing a significant amount of time with/against said players.

@ OverratedSanity

1) No he didn't. His fifty came in the first inning of that Test. It was Azhurradin and Manjrekar that saved that match. Everyone in that top-to-middle order bar Shastri scored more than him in that match. Prabhakar had more to do with saving that match.

2) I'm talking about Tests. In ODIs Tendulkar in the earlier part of his career was crap. Not only that, it was an unofficial ODI...this is straw clutching to say the least and a one-off inning has nothing to do with determining a player's contemporary.

3) So? Other than his youth, what about that series should be memorable for Hadlee? Keep in mind, Hadlee retired in 1990...why should have he considered Tendulkar a member of his time? Sachin hadn't even played a year of Test cricket when Hadlee retired.

4) You do realise that Tendulkar never played Botham? Which 80s great in that English side are you referring to?

5 + 6) True, this is when it started to happen...but what does this have to do with him being pronounced as a contemporary to players who played in the decade(s) prior? The point was that Tendulkar had barely played cricket with the players harsh.skm's name-dropped. Why in god's name would they consider him as one of their era when they barely played him?

When I replied initially, you then made the retort that they considered him a formidable opponent. Which they didn't, because he wasn't. That he scored one off centuries showed his promise...but that doesn't make you a formidable opponent. The reason it was 'condensed' into an average was an acknowledgement of this fact.

7) Yeh, he scored a century in a series where he scored 11, 1, 6 and 0 in the other innings - averaging in the 20s. I know that you mention this innings because of his age...but the question remains, as it did in the above, why should this mean that he was a contemporary of the 80s greats? Moreover, S.Africa didn't have any 80s greats...because S.Africa didn't play in the 80s!

----

Now, it seems obvious to me that if you were from the era preceding...the only thing you'd remember about Tendulkar is that in the 1 series you played against him he did OK for a kid, making a name for himself. That's not somebody you consider of your era unless you consider anyone who ever played an inning against you as your contemporary. That's the kind of redefinition you have to engage in to say the 80s greats 'firmly considered him a member of their times'.

And its even more ridiculous when you realise of the greats the poster in question mentions 2 of them never even played Tests against Tendulkar (Botham and Marshall); one retired in 1990, less than a year into Tendulkar's career (Hadlee); and another that only played 1 series against him which was debut (Imran). So past 1990, the only great here mentioned that actually played Tendulkar or saw him for enough years up close, witnessing his ascension, was Border. That's it.

Frankly, I'm perplexed that this even required a detailed breakdown or even a long discussion.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@ harsh.skm

I picked on the whole post, but the part I re-quoted was the part that basically encapsulated your point...which wasn't one worth making if you're simply looking at dates played, instead of looking at whose contemporary certain players are.

You've done the disingenuous thing and argue my point was about his average. It wasn't. It was that he played very little cricket during/with/against the players in question, and what more was at that time renown more for the fact that he was picked so early and did fairly OK. He was not really that good in the broader meaning of the word in relation to his peers, and that's not debatable. That point was to establish that those players, at that time, had very little reason to even think about Tendulkar...let alone think about them as "one of them".

As I said, the idea that Imran and co would describe Tendulkar - a kid they faced for 1 series, a few tests, in which he did OK - a contemporary is absurd. If you don't want to hear that you're being absurd, don't be absurd. Tendulkar was not their contemporary in the meaning that is usually given to that word - i.e. playing a significant amount of time with/against said players.

@ OverratedSanity

1) No he didn't. His fifty came in the first inning of that Test. It was Azhurradin and Manjrekar that saved that match. Everyone in that top-to-middle order bar Shastri scored more than him in that match. Prabhakar had more to do with saving that match.

2) I'm talking about Tests. In ODIs Tendulkar in the earlier part of his career was crap. Not only that, it was an unofficial ODI...this is straw clutching to say the least.

3) So? Other than his youth, what about that series should be memorable for Hadlee? Keep in mind, Hadlee retired in 1990...why should have he considered Tendulkar a member of his time? Sachin hadn't even played a year of Test cricket when Hadlee retired.

4) You do realise that Tendulkar never played Botham? Which 80s great in that English side are you referring to?

5 + 6) True, this is when it started to happen...but what does this have to do with him being pronounced as a contemporary to players who played in the decade(s) prior? The point was that Tendulkar had barely played cricket with the players harsh.skm's name-dropped. Why in god's name would they consider him as one of their era when they barely played him?

When I replied initially, you then made the retort that they considered him a formidable opponent. Which they didn't, because he wasn't. That he scored one off centuries showed his promise...but that doesn't make you a formidable opponent. The reason it was 'condensed' into an average was an acknowledgement of this fact.

7) Yeh, he scored a century in a series where he scored 11, 1, 6 and 0 in the other innings - averaging in the 20s. Now, I know that you mention this innings up because of his age...but the question remains, as it did in the above, why in god's name should this mean that he was a contemporary of the 80s greats? Moreover, S.Africa didn't have any 80s greats...because S.Africa didn't play in the 80s!

----

Now, it seems obvious to me that if you were from the era preceding...the only thing you'd remember about Tendulkar is that in the 1 series you played against him he did OK for a kid, making a name for himself. That's not somebody you consider of your era unless you consider anyone who ever played an inning against you as your contemporary. That's the kind of redefinition you have to engage in to say the 80s greats 'firmly considered him a member of their times'.

And its even more ridiculous when you realise of the greats the poster in question mentions 2 of them never even played Tests against Tendulkar (Botham and Marshall); one retired in 1990, less than a year into Tendulkar's career (Hadlee); and another that only played 1 series against him which was debut (Imran). The only 80s great that played a significant amount of time against him, and who saw him enough to become more than a prospect, was Border. That's it.

Frankly, I'm perplexed that this even required a detailed breakdown or even a long discussion.

It's plain to see you didn't understand what harsh meant. The 80s greats looked at him as a worthy opponent even in the few times they played each other be it tests or ODI's ( don't know why only tests count in this case for you)

I only made that long post because you said "Tendulkar averaged 37.41" as though that meant his initial years weren't really that special, which couldn't be farther from the truth

 

[Ikki]

It's plain to see you didn't understand what harsh meant. The 80s greats looked at him as a worthy opponent even in the few times they played each other be it tests or ODI's ( don't know why only tests count in this case for you)

I only made that long post because you said "Tendulkar averaged 37.41" as though that meant his initial years weren't really that special, which couldn't be farther from the truth

Why would Marshall and Border who never played him look at him as a worthy opponent?
Why would Hadlee, who saw a teenage Tendulkar, less than a year into his career see him as a worthy opponent?
Why would Imran, who saw Tendulkar's debut, see him as a worthy opponent?

The guy was destined to be great because he started off so young and already showed promise. But he was not a threat at that stage and by the time he had become one they were long gone. And my point had little to do with just how good he was at that time - that's not debatable, because he wasn't - it was to show that not only did they barely play with him, but that it's not like he was blowing the doors down at that stage of his career either. If a player averaged 20 but played 10 years with those cricketers, he'd still be their contemporary due to the duration of the overlap of their careers - so it's not about average.

It would be like saying Gilchrist was Ambrose's contemporary.

 

[Shri]

Why would Marshall and Border who never played him look at him as a worthy opponent?
Why would Hadlee, who saw a teenage Tendulkar, less than a year into his career see him as a worthy opponent?
Why would Imran, who saw Tendulkar's debut, see him as a worthy opponent?

The guy was destined to be great because he started off so young and already showed promise. But he was not a threat at that stage and by the time he had become one they were long gone. Really, it's pretty desperate to suggest otherwise, but you can think what you like I guess.

**** me I forgot what a pedantic **** you were.

 

[Ikki]

**** me I forgot what a pedantic **** you were.

What happened to you? I remember you being funny.

 

[harsh.ag]

@ harsh.skm

I picked on the whole post, but the part I re-quoted was the part that basically encapsulated your point...which wasn't one worth making if you're simply looking at dates played, instead of looking at whose contemporary certain players are.

You've done the disingenuous thing and argue my point was about his average. It wasn't. It was that he played very little cricket during/with/against the players in question, and what more was at that time renown more for the fact that he was picked so early and did fairly OK. He was not really that good in the broader meaning of the word in relation to his peers, and that's not debatable. That point was to establish that those players, at that time, had very little reason to even think about Tendulkar...let alone think about them as "one of them".

As I said, the idea that Imran and co would describe Tendulkar - a kid they faced for 1 series, a few tests, in which he did OK - a contemporary is absurd. If you don't want to hear that you're being absurd, don't be absurd. Tendulkar was not their contemporary in the meaning that is usually given to that word - i.e. playing a significant amount of time with/against said players.

@ OverratedSanity

4) You do realise that Tendulkar never played Botham? Which 80s great in that English side are you referring to?

5 + 6) True, this is when it started to happen...but what does this have to do with him being pronounced as a contemporary to players who played in the decade(s) prior? The point was that Tendulkar had barely played cricket with the players harsh.skm's name-dropped. Why in god's name would they consider him as one of their era when they barely played him?

----

Now, it seems obvious to me that if you were from the era preceding...the only thing you'd remember about Tendulkar is that in the 1 series you played against him he did OK for a kid, making a name for himself. That's not somebody you consider of your era unless you consider anyone who ever played an inning against you as your contemporary. That's the kind of redefinition you have to engage in to say the 80s greats 'firmly considered him a member of their times'.

And its even more ridiculous when you realise of the greats the poster in question mentions 2 of them never even played Tests against Tendulkar (Botham and Marshall); one retired in 1990, less than a year into Tendulkar's career (Hadlee); and another that only played 1 series against him which was debut (Imran). The only 80s great that played a significant amount of time against him, and who saw him enough to become more than a prospect, was Border. That's it.

Frankly, I'm perplexed that this even required a detailed breakdown or even a long discussion.

- First and foremost, I know we only talk about test cricket generally on this forum, but for the purpose of my post, it should have been obvious to anybody who didn't have a giant blind spot that it was referring to both formats of the game.

- In tests from 1989-92 after Sachin's debut, here is the record for Indian batsmen:



Here is the link: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Now, would you say he was not "firmly a member of the times"? The third most prolific batsman in one of the top teams in the world is not one? Good one.

- In ODIs from 1989-92 after Sachin's debut, here is the record for Indian batsmen:

Link: Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

The second most prolific batsman. Not a firm fixture of the international circuit!!!

The greats I mentioned played him a few times in tests and ODIs combined, especially combining the 92 WC. Now I know you are going to go on the attack saying I am doing the disingenuous thing by including ODIs, but I am not. Common sense should have told you that ODIs were to be included in the post since I was talking about the vast expanse of the game, and how it has evolved to T20s and what-not.

- He did play Botham. Here is the video link: ***Rare **** : Sachin against Hadlee, Botham , Imran and with Kapil Dev - YouTube

And to be a contemporary, you don't have to play a mountain-load of matches against somebody. Sachin was very much a part of the times when these guys retired. Border, as you say, saw the most.

- You say they didn't think of Tendulkar, and you say I am being absurd. You are absurd. As Smali notes:

I still remember the edition of The Cricketer in Pakistan which came after the 1992 world cup. It featured a double page poster of Sachin Tendulkar in the 1992 WC gear. Was touted as a genius in that edition

They thought of him quite a bit, in every circle.

Frankly, I'm perplexed that this even required a detailed breakdown or even a long discussion.

Go ahead, remain perplexed.

 

[harsh.ag]

FTR, this was my original post:

Tendulkar's career is something that perhaps the 90s kids do not completely comprehend, or can't completely comprehend. He started out in 1988 basically in terms of playing the highest class of players in India. Then the 89 Pak tour, and the Qadir thing, and the England tour and the 92 WC (which he played, and which, again, is never spoken about much, perhaps because he gave his wicket away on several occasions trying to get quick runs down the order). By the end of 92, he was considered by the 80 greats to be firmly a member of their times. All those who were in the same position as Sachin during that time (Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh) were all gone by the early 2000s. That is why Tendulkar seems freaky to guys like Botham, Hadlee, Imran (and Marshall too had he been alive), and to the fans who grew up watching 80s cricket. To think this guy traversed across the T20 carnivals is just an amazing thought. To think he led Mumbai Indians to glory is just mind-boggling to the 90s brigade who, till now, see it as the "weird new thing" (because they never got to be a part of it), but Sachin lived it all for them, on their behalf, echoing the greats of the 80s and 90s when he was able to successfully integrate into the post-modern game. If he hadn't been there, I am sure a lot of us (at least me) would have felt that this thing (T20 and the new rules) was just going overboard. But by adapting himself, by his calm presence through all this, Sachin helped everyone ease into it because hey, there is this guy from our generation who seems to be having no problems with how things are going! I guess I am rambling a bit now, but he is more than a bridge. He is a big-ass toll highway.

 

[harsh.ag]

And I forgot to mention, when I mean 80 greats, I meant the Indian players to a large extent as well. I hope Ikki doesn't deny this as well. I hope Indian greats like Vengsarkar, Kapil etc. have the right to consider him as a member of their time, Ikki.

 

[Ikki]

See, mental gymnastics. It isn't enough that the guy played for 24 years so that we can talk about that and congratulate him on that feat. We must somehow stretch that career so long ago that when Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, etc, played, he was already established for them. And now we'll get the cherry-picked mentions of stats or one-off innings to try to meld reality into the figments of our imagination.

- He was the 3rd highest run scorer, but if you want to neglect to mention how many games played then I'll mention that he also had the 5th highest average; barely higher than Kiran More.

- Once again; the 4th highest average in ODIs. No 100s, averaging 33 and striking at 74 (and India sucked). That's a bit more truthful of his situation.

- Yes, to be a contemporary, one that the greats considered a 'member of their times' you have to play them quite a bit. We are not here debating the fact that Tendulkar had a regular place in the Indian test/odi squad. That wasn't the point and its not something that necessitates the consideration of 'greats' because it is a matter of fact not opinion. The reason you input their opinion into your spiel is because it gives your statement the authority to depict Tendulkar as an established contemporary amongst the greats, even at that time, as well as throughout the 90s, 00s and beyond.

And that's what I have a problem with. If you want to say that his career overlapped with theirs, from a factual point of view, until all the way to guys like Anderson; then you can knock yourself out. It's when you try to patronise people - the people from the 90s who 'cannot comprehend' how great Tendulkar is - and use the opinions of the 80s greats to suggest he was their contemporary that it falls apart.

If you're simply stating that his career overlapped - even if by 1 inning - with theirs then it doesn't need an opinion from them...it's just a fact, and we can all comprehend it just fine.