Is Tendulkar a choker

[marc71178]

well i had already stated my opinion on it. you obviously have never seen chauhan bowl and yet you make a judgement on him.

Right...

 

[aussie_beater]

look this is the last time im going to give you my definition of a flat wicket. if you're going to continue to act dyslexic then im sorry i cant help you.
a flat wicket is one that offers consistent pace and bounce without too much lateral movement. multan offered consistent pace and bounce with no real lateral movement...thereby it was flat or "not non-flat"(as you call it).

What is "without too much lateral movement" ? Can you quantify the "too much" ? And also Multan did not offer any "real" lateral movement....eh ? What constitutes "real" lateral movement and what is "virtual" ? You are laughable mate.....Take an advise.....Don't make a fool of yourself any more then you already have.

 

[aussie_beater]

well i had already stated my opinion on it. you obviously have never seen chauhan bowl and yet you make a judgement on him. so if there was any way to prove to you that he wasnt as bad as you make him out to be, it was with a second opinion which is why i brought in cricinfo.

I have seen about every single match that Chauhan has played....for that matter I have seen almost every single test match that India has played starting from the India-Aus series of 1985, alright ! So don't act smart with me. Not everyone makes a judgement about cricket by reading cricinfo and making weird theories about it.

well if u want to count 5/115s and performances against zimbabwe and the WI in india. nothing can convince me if that chauhan had been given an extended run in the team that he too wouldnt have got those 5/115s etc.
and that "stop smoking whatever it is that you are smoking" is getting really old now.

Chauhan never even got a 5 wicket haul in his whole career....and he is better then Harbhajan....pfft !! Read more obituaries and your cricketing knowledge would be complete.

 

[Sudeep]

!

When Tendulkar delivers one innings like Gavaskar's 102 in the 4th innings in Trinidad against Clive Lloyd's West Indies chasing 406 to win with India already down 1-0 in the series, then maybe he can stake that claim. Merely piling on run after run shows me nothing except he can put bat on ball. Do it when it counts. The closest Tendulkar's come is the 1999 Test versus Pakistan in Chennai. Close, but no cigar. Sure Gavaskar failed too, every batsman fails. Just because Tendulkar is the most popular Indian cricketer ever doesn't make him the best batsman.

Two consecutive games against Australia at Sharjah?

World Cup 2003 match against Pakistan, plus most other matches of the Cup. Remember he was the Player of the Tournament?

To score a century in the 1999 World Cup, the next match he plays after his father passes away?

And yeah, Gavaskar didn't have a back injury when he scored 102. The 1999 Test against Pakistan, Tendulkar was literally broken down. Still he took India closer than any man could ever have.

I would put the Indian batsman in the following order of greatness, no matter what others say:
1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Gundappa Vishvanath
4. Rahul Dravid

 

[DJ]

And that's why so many people rate him as one of the best of all time?

Let me guess, we're all wrong, and you and him are right?

In my opinion, yes, you are wrong and I am right. You may have whatever opinion you want though.

 

[DJ]

It's all the people INSIDE the game who rate SRT as a great player which sway it for me.

We all know that cricketers are brainless sportsmen - if they had any intelligence they would have played something which paid - so we can safely discount their opinions and go with TEC and the new guy who doesn't shave yet.

If you're only going to take on board the opinions others, then it's not your opinion. You should really make up your own mind instead of having your opinion decided for you by others.

To me, Tendulkar is someone who cashes in when the going is good but cannot carry an attack when it is needed. And that is what makes us and people like TEC feel that he is one of the most overrated batsmen ever.

Why is it that people get their knickers in such a twist whenever someone says that they don't think Tendulkar is the best thing since sliced Bradman? In terms of current batsmen, I'd probably rank them thus:

1. Dravid
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Lara (although he can go higher or lower, depending on his mood)
5. Gibbs
6. Laxman
7. G Smith
8. Tendulkar
9. Kallis
10. Langer

 

[luckyeddie]

If you're only going to take on board the opinions others, then it's not your opinion. You should really make up your own mind instead of having your opinion decided for you by others.

(Rest of the post snipped)

Thanks for the advice. I always did have problems making up my own mind.

 

[DJ]

You still haven't caught on though......

 

[tooextracool]

What is "without too much lateral movement" ? Can you quantify the "too much" ? And also Multan did not offer any "real" lateral movement....eh ? What constitutes "real" lateral movement and what is "virtual" ? You are laughable mate.....Take an advise.....Don't make a fool of yourself any more then you already have.

look no wicket in the world doesnt offer any lateral movement. it doesnt matter if u play in the gobi desert and bowl with the new ball u will get a little bit of lateral movement. and is there a unit for me to quantify the amount of lateral movement?good god some people just need to be shot.

 

[tooextracool]

I have seen about every single match that Chauhan has played....for that matter I have seen almost every single test match that India has played starting from the India-Aus series of 1985, alright ! So don't act smart with me. Not everyone makes a judgement about cricket by reading cricinfo and making weird theories about it.

the key here is "about".

Chauhan never even got a 5 wicket haul in his whole career....and he is better then Harbhajan....pfft !! Read more obituaries and your cricketing knowledge would be complete.

do you read?seriously u can start with obituaries and go on to books. chauhan was never given an extended run throughout his career. he was dropped after playing 2-3 games and was his action was under scrutiny. do u expect a player to get 5 wicket hauls in a stop-start career like that?? and no ive based my judgement on actually watching him play not on what cricinfo has said. cricinfo was just a backup,which has already proved you wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

Two consecutive games against Australia at Sharjah?

World Cup 2003 match against Pakistan, plus most other matches of the Cup. Remember he was the Player of the Tournament?

To score a century in the 1999 World Cup, the next match he plays after his father passes away?

test matches please.....and yeah it was a brillitan century against.....ahhh yes kenya.

And yeah, Gavaskar didn't have a back injury when he scored 102. The 1999 Test against Pakistan, Tendulkar was literally broken down. Still he took India closer than any man could ever have.

so tendulkar has been having a back injury for 15 yrs now?

 

[Sudeep]

test matches please.....and yeah it was a brillitan century against.....ahhh yes kenya.

Sachin stats:

When India wins:

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50
33 2793 194* 64.95 10 9

When India draws:

48 4186 241* 74.75 15 19

When India loses:

33 2491 177 37.74 8 9

Ok, what do you interpret from this? That Sachin fails in pressure situations, when India needs someone that can rescue them, Sachin fails etc. etc.?

So, you get this from the last statistic, right?

Now lets see the first two stats, how has he played when India wins or draws? What does this mean? Sachin has set up so many wins for India. Does that mean wins only in winning positions? That he was called upon to do just the final act? No, there were pressure situations in (33+48) games, out of which Sachin did set up some, if not all the victories and draws.


Rahul Dravid:

When India wins:

23 2336 270 75.35 6 11

When India draws:

29 3051 222 80.28 10 14

When India loses:

26 1468 118 29.95 1 7


Now compare, India has lost 33 Tests out of 114 Sachin has played in, and 26 out of 78 Dravid has played in. I'm sorry, Sachin has the better stats.

If a team loses, and a certain player doesn't play well in that, he isn't called a choker. A choker is one, who messes up in pressure situations. However, I went through atleast 10 of those 33 matches India won while Sachin played, where Sachin has been the major contriubtor with the runs, to set up a target. Of the 48 drawn matches as well, to avoid a defeat, while others around him crumbled.

I don't have anything against Dravid. He is the best at the moment, but still a little far off from Sachin's class.

And 33 centuries, what does that mean? You mean to say none came in a pressure situation?

A century after your father passes away a couple of days before. No matter what the team is, that shows character.

Gavaskar 102 out of 400 odd? Yeah good. Did anyone hang around Sachin when 270 odd were needed to chase and he scored 130 odd? No. So who score the rest 300 while Gavaskar was batting? It was a team effort. For Sachin, there was no team support. For Dravid there has been.

 

[DJ]

Looks like your stats show that Dravid is the one who India rely on most.

I once did a little research into Tendulkar's centuries and found that the majority of his hundreds were scored when another Indian batsman had also scored a century. In other words, when the going's good, Tendulkar's there asking for seconds. But when it's do or die, he's cowering at the back of the lunch queue wearing glasses and a fake moustache. There are occasions where he stands alone, but in a career spanning 114 matches and 184 innings that's being described by many as one of the greatest ever, surely there should be more than just the 3 or 4 innings that actually meant something?

I don't buy the disclaimer of 'he's had no support' either. What were Shastri, Azharruddin, Kambli, Sidhu, Manjrekar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and so on? India have always had a reasonably solid batting line-up in recent times, if not the absolutely outstanding one that they currently have. And he STILL crumbles in the face of pressure.

Anyway, you can't say that he does cope with pressure and still use the excuse that he has no support. It's got to be one or the other.

While I enjoy watching him bat, when it comes to the batsmen I would choose to bat for my life, Tendulkar does not feature on the list.

 

[DJ]

Just to illustrate my point, I am currently randomly going through his list of centuries again on the channel4 website and clicking on them to see if any other Indian scored one too. This is a live experiment by the way - I did not do this earlier in the day, I'm doing it right now, BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!!!

Behold.....

IND v SRI 1997-98, 3rd Test
Tendulkar 148
Ganguly 173
Dravid 93

AUS v IND 1991-92, 3rd Test
Tendulkar 148*
Shastri 206

SA v IND 1996-97, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 169
Azharruddin 115

AUS v IND 1999-2000, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 116
(Aha, we finally have one)

IND v NZ 1999-2000, 1st Test
Tendulkar 126*
Dravid 148
Gandhi 75
Ramesh 73
Ganguly 64*

I'll only do it 3 more times as I'm getting sleepy now...

IND v WI 1994-95, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 179
Sidhu 107
Azharruddin 97

SRI v IND 1997-98, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 139
Ganguly 147

IND v ZIM 2002, 1st Test Match
Tendulkar 176
Das 105
Bangar 100*


And there we have it. I might continue the exercise later on to see if the completed results bear me out.

 

[chicane]

It's not like all of SRT's 100's have come when everything's nice and rosy..He's been literally the one man team for India all these years, and the hero of most of India's memorable wins. Tendulkar is far from a choker. Even if he fails miserably in the future(highly unlikely), he's already done enough.

 

[DJ]

How has he been a one man team? I think you do a great disservice to the likes of Shastri, Azharruddin, Kambli, Sidhu, Manjrekar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Harbhajan, Kapil Dev, Kumble, Srinath, Raju, Prabhakar, Prasad, Mongia and More when you say that. Like I said earlier, I don't buy the excuse that he has no support.

What memorable wins was he the hero of? If you back up your statements, maybe we can take this further. I'm here to be convinced.

 

[DJ]

To continue though:

ENG v IND 2002, 3rd Test Match
Tendulkar 193
Ganguly 128
Dravid 148

SA v IND 2001, 1st Test
Tendulkar 155
Sehwag 105

ENG v IND 1990, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 119*
(Alone here too)

 

[aussie_beater]

look no wicket in the world doesnt offer any lateral movement. it doesnt matter if u play in the gobi desert and bowl with the new ball u will get a little bit of lateral movement. and is there a unit for me to quantify the amount of lateral movement?good god some people just need to be shot.

So you agree that there is no objective way to measure what is too much bounce and what is not, and what is too much lateral movement and what is not, right ? So stop touting your rants as gospel.

Now tell me if the pitches in NZ that were used for the India-NZ series of 2003 had too much or too less or moderate lateral movement ?

 

[aussie_beater]

the key here is "about".

And it was so "obvious" that I hadn't seen Chauhan bowl, right ? Yes ofcourse I cannot claim to have seen every over that he bowled but I have seen enough of his matches to know how good or bad he was. And I don't have to back up my opinion using some stupid cricket-obituary from cricinfo.

do you read?seriously u can start with obituaries and go on to books. chauhan was never given an extended run throughout his career. he was dropped after playing 2-3 games and was his action was under scrutiny. do u expect a player to get 5 wicket hauls in a stop-start career like that?? and no ive based my judgement on actually watching him play not on what cricinfo has said. cricinfo was just a backup,which has already proved you wrong.

And do you even know that Harbhajan went through a similar career graph when he got suspended after he was reported over his bowling action and only got a break against Australia again in 2001 due to the absence of Anil Kumble , after playing around 7 matches at the start of his career. He on the other hand was talented and gutsy enough to take the opportunity and make something out of it, unlike Chauhan who always remained on the borders of mediocrity.

And why again has cricinfo proven me wrong about this Chauhan/Harbhajan thing ? Is there any statistical data by which Chauhan beats Harbhajan ? Look at facts and not fiction that you try to imagine.

 

[aussie_beater]

Just to illustrate my point, I am currently randomly going through his list of centuries again on the channel4 website and clicking on them to see if any other Indian scored one too. This is a live experiment by the way - I did not do this earlier in the day, I'm doing it right now, BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!!!

Behold.....

IND v SRI 1997-98, 3rd Test
Tendulkar 148
Ganguly 173
Dravid 93

AUS v IND 1991-92, 3rd Test
Tendulkar 148*
Shastri 206

SA v IND 1996-97, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 169
Azharruddin 115

AUS v IND 1999-2000, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 116
(Aha, we finally have one)

IND v NZ 1999-2000, 1st Test
Tendulkar 126*
Dravid 148
Gandhi 75
Ramesh 73
Ganguly 64*

I'll only do it 3 more times as I'm getting sleepy now...

IND v WI 1994-95, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 179
Sidhu 107
Azharruddin 97

SRI v IND 1997-98, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 139
Ganguly 147

IND v ZIM 2002, 1st Test Match
Tendulkar 176
Das 105
Bangar 100*


And there we have it. I might continue the exercise later on to see if the completed results bear me out.

You quoted the 148 he scored against Aus in 1991 at Sydney, but you didn't mention the 114 he scored at Perth where he was the only Indian centurion.

You quoted the 169 he scored against SA in 1996 at Capetown, but your didn't mention the 111 he scored at Johannesburg in 1992 where again he was the only Indian centurion.

You didn't even quote the 122 that he scored at Edgbaston against England in 1996 where again he was the only Indian centurion.

You also didn't mention the 116 that he scored against Aus in 1999 at Melbourne, where he was the only Indian centurion.

You didn't mention the 117 that he scored against WI at Port of Spain in 2002, where he was the only Indian centurion.

And these are only some of the innings(with scores of 100 and above) where he has played a lone hand and that too only away from India. I haven't looked at statistics of matches played in India at all.

So if you are going to use statistics to prove any point, then try to avoid selective amnesia.