Is Tendulkar a choker

[Dasa]

...im just not going to reply

You're welcome to not reply, although you would be depriving me of some comic relief.

 

[JBH001]

Isnt all this partly based on the expectations we place on SRT?

Generally we judge him by near impossible standards, and when he fails to reach them, we go the opposite way and damn him far too harshly.

 

[aussie_beater]

Err, I hate to butt in, but I have to say that the quick bowling these days is very ordinary indeed. The 'list' you produce up top pretty much proves it, as you've selected 3 bowlers who've retired, one who hasn't played in about a year, two spinners and a greasy show-pony who can only play a maximum of 2 Tests in a row before taking 3 months off to recuperate in the night-club of his choice. And he chucks it anyway.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Well that list pretty much sums up a list of very good bowlers who played their cricket for most of Sachin's cricket playing years.

 

[JBH001]

Well, bowlers 'these days' is the issue isnt it?
Ironically he has been having a bad patch in the last couple of years, when there really arent too many outstanding bowlers around and other batsmen are making merry.
SRT began his career in 88-89 on the tour of Pakistan as a 16yr old. Throughout his career along with Lara he would have come up against Waqar, Wasim, Imran, Qadir, McDermott, Hughes, McGrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Fraser, Caddick, Gough (?), Hadlee, Morrison, Cairns, Vaas, Murali etc.

It is an irrelevant point that he did not face Lillee, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc as he was not around at the time.
All he can do is face the best opposition in his own time, and that he has done and more.
Also most of the bowlers in that list are equal to the great bowlers of the previous era (and in any case no real comparative judgement can be made between top performers of different era's) and most of them were in their prime in the late 80's/early 90's or through the 90's when Sachin and Lara played most of their careers.

I also find it suggestive that Steve Waugh never made a hundred in the 4th Innings of a Test. If we damn and blast SRT as being a choker on the evidence of not making enough hundreds in the 4th innings of test matches - then logically what must we say about Waugh? Overrated perhaps, with a good Anglo-Australian media to back him up, not to mention all those not outs to inflate his average?

 

[Dasa]

Isnt all this partly based on the expectations we place on SRT?

Generally we judge him by near impossible standards, and when he fails to reach them, we go the opposite way and damn him far too harshly.

That is certainly true of Tendulkar. He is judged by impossibly high standards, and every failure of his is seen as a failure for 1billion Indians. You don't see anyone calling Laxman a choker because he didn't really fire in the recent Pakistan series.

 

[Vroomfondel]

jbh001, yours was one of the most cogent posts i've read in a while. thank you.

 

[chicane]

The way Tony Blair and his troops are lining up in Iraq and the way you are posting, It seems you are more Influenced by GWB than rest of us.

 

[luckyeddie]

(snipped)

I also find it suggestive that Steve Waugh never made a hundred in the 4th Innings of a Test. If we damn and blast SRT as being a choker on the evidence of not making enough hundreds in the 4th innings of test matches - then logically what must we say about Waugh? Overrated perhaps, with a good Anglo-Australian media to back him up, not to mention all those not outs to inflate his average?

It's not taken you long to get the general idea. Welcome to CricketWeb, the magical kingdom where Ramprakash is worth any number of Tendulkars, because he was never in long enough to choke..

 

[tooextracool]

Most of tooextracool's comments are laughable baseless subjective nonsense. Statistics need to be handled with care but a total dismissal of them in place of personal preference is nonsense. Your argument such as Chauhan being better than Harbhajan cannot be correct if there is no evidence and the stats dont support it. Facts dont lie fools do.

facts dont lie eh?so would u care to use stats to show my that ricky ponting and hayden are not better than viv richards?stats dont support that either,in the same way that they dont support the chauhan-harbhajan argument.
and id expect someone ludicrous like you to use stats as the be all and end all to decide whether a player is better or not.just like you do with the murali and warne argument. if you like to look like a fool then go hang around with you're pal murali.

 

[tooextracool]

Cut the crap and grow up.... learn to look at stats that mean something...comparing oranges and apples don't mean a thing... Is it so hard to notice that Kambli did not play the same number of matches as Viv did ? And who said that Anderson is an allrounder....maybe you did, but no sane person would do that. Anderson has played in only 28 ODIs and averages 4 with the bat and has played 8 test matches with a highest score of 21 and most of the innings are N.O.s ..... and you are talking about IQs ??? It doesn't take much of an intelligence to understand that this is not the type of stats that we are talking about here.

yes but you do have the intelligence to judge that when scores of 700-800 are scored the pitches are non flat and the batsmen who scored 250* should be worshipped.

 

[tooextracool]

Is it a Written rule that Ricky Ponting can't be better than Viv Richards ??

there are 2 reasons why anyone would rate ponting better than viv:

1) he probably has the brain of harbhajan singh...in which case he should just stop watching cricket. or
2) he happens to be an aussie.

perhaps both those points coincide but i dont really care.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes absolutely....not all wickets are totally flat or complete minefields.... but then you cannot come to a judgement about those types of wickets by just comparing them with minefields or totally dead tracks or looking at runs scored or bowlers statistics or the like... you need to have seen the match.Relying on stats for making your judegements about this sort of stuff and then ignoring stats to keep on harping about a pre-concieved notion that you might have about some player is just too dumb and suits a ten-year old.

dont be ridiculous now, tendulkar has always struggled on any wicket outside of home that offers the bowler something. and i have seen every one of tendulkar's successful away innings and ive also noticed that those wickets gave the bowler absolutely nothing.

And I have given enough examples of those in a reply post to DJ in this same thread, where Sachin was the only centurion from the team.... Save your reply if you are gonna come up saying that most of those innings were against poor bowling or the pitches were totally flat or some nonsense on those lines.

no you havent.obviously you missed the 3rd test match between england and the west indies. thorpe was the only player from either side to have got a century. the pitch offered quite a bit for the bowlers but a good batsman could definetly score on it. you can bring up tendulkar centuries on wickets where 3 opposition players scored centuries(probably included the keeper or a no 8 batsman) and the rest of the indian team(that included rathour,raman,manjarekar,ganguly,mongia etc) didnt score.

 

[Sanz]

Err, I hate to butt in, but I have to say that the quick bowling these days is very ordinary indeed. The 'list' you produce up top pretty much proves it, as you've selected 3 bowlers who've retired, one who hasn't played in about a year, two spinners and a greasy show-pony who can only play a maximum of 2 Tests in a row before taking 3 months off to recuperate in the night-club of his choice. And he chucks it anyway.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Err - Hate to remind you but Tendulkar made his debut in 1989 and played against most of these bowlers for years. These retirements have come recently.

 

[DJ]

So? Those bowlers were listed to demonstrate the 'era of great fast bowling' we're currently living in. You know, Warne, Murali, those fearsome quicks?

 

[Sanz]

no you havent.obviously you missed the 3rd test match between england and the west indies. thorpe was the only player from either side to have got a century. the pitch offered quite a bit for the bowlers but a good batsman could definetly score on it.

Yeah Right and This bowling attack was really great. It must have reminded you of the great WI attack of Holding, Garner, Roberts, MArshall etc.

 

[Sanz]

So? Those bowlers were listed to demonstrate the 'era of great fast bowling' we're currently living in. You know, Warne, Murali, those fearsome quicks?

Next time you butt in make sure you read my posts carefully otherwise you will make a fool out of yourself. I will help you this time, Here is my Original post :-

"..As far as the quality of bowlers is concerned - I guess so far Tendulkar has played in an era of Great Fast Bowlers and Spin Bowlers and has done better than every other batsman. Just to name a few bowlers he played against :-
Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Akram, Waqar, Saqlain, Warne, Gough, Akhtar, Gillespie, Donald, Pollock, Murali. If you think these bowlers were mediocre than I guess you get your head examined."

 

[DJ]

I wasn't replying to that post. Tooextracool made this post in response to one of yours:

if u call this era an era of great fast bowling then u obviously are out of you're mind. compare it to the 80s when we had holding,marshall,garner,roberts,botham,lillee,thom mo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed.

You responded by posting this:

Hehehe, Just wanted to quote this one so that it doesn't get lost in the Galaxy of other posts. So you think Akram, Younis, Mcgrath, Warnie, Murali, Donald, Akhtar etc are Ordinary ??

From that, it looked to me as though you were discussing the current crop of quicks.

 

[Sanz]

I was not, I was talking about bowlers, Fast and spin both.

 

[aussie_beater]

dont be ridiculous now, tendulkar has always struggled on any wicket outside of home that offers the bowler something. and i have seen every one of tendulkar's successful away innings and ive also noticed that those wickets gave the bowler absolutely nothing.

Pfft !!

no you havent.obviously you missed the 3rd test match between england and the west indies. thorpe was the only player from either side to have got a century. the pitch offered quite a bit for the bowlers but a good batsman could definetly score on it.

Yeah and in this pitch the quality of the bowling does not matter at all.... only in cases where Sachin is batting all that comes into play.... don't assume that everyone else here is demented like you.

 

[aussie_beater]

yes but you do have the intelligence to judge that when scores of 700-800 are scored the pitches are non flat and the batsmen who scored 250* should be worshipped.

And you have the intelligence to judge that a batsman's averages over 15 years don't mean a thing and only some deranged logic that you have is the be all and end all for judging quality batsman.