Is Tendulkar a choker

[maxpower]

I'd have to disagree with that. Most tracks in the world today genuinely are flat.

when Aus played WI in WI, that were the most dead tracks ever, Aus bowlers worked hard, the ball would die on the way to the keeper, and they would walk back with their head down, but come back with more venom and bowl and they produced a 3-1 result. If on the flat tracks like those AUS bowlers play beyond their potential, its not harsh to expect some kind of bowling discipline from other world class bowlers and to deliver, I sure would not call most tracks flat, because I sure do see very bad bowling from a lot of world class bowlers.

 

[Sanz]

If wickets are so flat than how come more wickets are falling and most test matches are producing results, unlike the 60s, 70s and 80s when 60% of the test matches ended in Draw ?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

when Aus played WI in WI, that were the most dead tracks ever, Aus bowlers worked hard, the ball would die on the way to the keeper, and they would walk back with their head down, but come back with more venom and bowl and they produced a 3-1 result. If on the flat tracks like those AUS bowlers play beyond their potential, its not harsh to expect some kind of bowling discipline from other world class bowlers and to deliver, I sure would not call most tracks flat, because I sure do see very bad bowling from a lot of world class bowlers.

If they bowl badly a lot, then how can they truly be world class? Or has 'class' depreciated?

Regarding the pitches, all of them in South Africa were very flat except for the morning session of the 3rd (?) Test and under lights in the ODI's. The subcontinent is notorious for its batting pitches and the Australian pitches weren't exactly lively either. In Zimbabwe, the pitches are typically flat and even in England the pitches are getting flatter and flatter every year.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If wickets are so flat than how come more wickets are falling and most test matches are producing results, unlike the 60s, 70s and 80s when 60% of the test matches ended in Draw ?

Because runs are being scored faster and batsmen are trying to score runs faster. If you score 350 runs in a day and rack up a first innings of 600 with time left on day 2, chances are you'll get a win unless it's at the ARG.

 

[aussie_beater]

It's a challanging pitch because of it's bounce but as I have said it's an absolute ripper to bat on once you do get set getting set being the problem.

Well, when most of the good batsman of contemporary times have failed on most occasions in this pitch, I would not try to call it an "absolute ripper to bat on", because I sure haven't batted at WACA and the only way for me to tell is to go by the stats which don't favour a batsman.

 

[Eclipse]

Well, when most of the good batsman of contemporary times have failed on most occasions in this pitch, I would not try to call it an "absolute ripper to bat on", because I sure haven't batted at WACA and the only way for me to tell is to go by the stats which don't favour a batsman.

hmm not sure I agree with that especialy Australia players.

We play slightly less test's there than the MCG, SCG , Adelaide and GABBA so no wonder some players dont have that many hundreds there but they all have quite good avrages at the ground.

Obvoulsy you dont pay that much attention matches played there. Go have a look at domestic matches it's usualy a batsman paradise because the players are used to batting there. There were some massive match totals racked up at the WACA this season in domestic cricket.

Ill only say it once more overseas players often struggel for reasons allready stated get over it!! A good length ball bounces an extra 3-4ft higher so it's no wonder guys who dont play there often struggel.

Those that play on the ground reguarly love it because it's got very true bounce a fast outfeilds and you get very good value for your shots.

I never said it's not a hard pitch to play on but the reason is not because it's a poor pitch I mean the wicket is often like a slab of concreat flat as a tack just bloody fast and bouncy.

 

[Eclipse]

Here are some current and recent Australian player avrages at the WACA.

Ponting 489 runs at 54.
Hayden 583 runs at 83.23
Martyn 258 runs at 44.0
Gilchrist 312 runs at 78.0
Langer 300 runs at 30.0 (FC avrage at WACA is over 60 though)
S.Waugh 843 runs at 44.36
M.Waugh 766 runs at 51.06
M. Slater 567 runs at 63.0

I think this shows almost everyone apart from Langer & Steven Waugh everyone has an avrage about equal or better than the carear avrage.

 

[tooextracool]

Steve Waugh did play more than 18 years and despite being a fine batsman he hardly holds any batting records, so your logic of playing for 20 years being the reason for having most batting records is not correct. Anyways Sachin already has 50% of the Individual ODI batting record in his name and lot of Test batting records as well.

i dont think records do really matter. the fact was that steve waugh was there for his team when his team was under immense pressure....that for me is priceless,unlike some of the pointless 241s and 194s on those dead flat wickets.viv richards himself didnt hold too many records either...but that doesnt mean he wasn't better than tendulkar.

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.

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,thommo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed. i would in no way classify saqlain,akhtar,and gillespie as great.akhtar is a 1 one devastating spell every 5 test matches type bowler who bowls rubbish when he isnt in rhythm, gillespie is decent but by no means great and saqlain,well he just wasnt very good was he?btw how many times has tendulkar played gough in a test match?if ur going to bring up random names then why not include larwood and wes hall too?
tendulkar never got to play ambrose in his prime either.and using your argument about kumble he never got to play waqar in his prime either, he faced him on waqar's debut series

Actually Pitches are flat only for Sachin, For every other batsman of his generation pitches become superfast or they are spinning tracks. Bowlers become mediocre only when they bowl to sachin otherwise they are fine.

if you're going to act that gullible then really theres no point in this discussion.

 

[tooextracool]

Multan provided consistent pace and bounce without too much lateral movement. Can you dispute that ?

and i thought lions81 was dyslexic!

And runs do come into the picture as you said 600/6 won't really cut it, and also it seems everytime you see runs being scored and that too by Indian batsman, you say its all a flat pitch. So then how much runs need to be scored if not 600/6, to qualify it as a non-flat pitch ?

there are several factors u need to take into account there:the quality of batting,bowling,fielding,pitch conditions etc

 

[tooextracool]

If they bowl badly a lot, then how can they truly be world class? Or has 'class' depreciated?

Regarding the pitches, all of them in South Africa were very flat except for the morning session of the 3rd (?) Test and under lights in the ODI's. The subcontinent is notorious for its batting pitches and the Australian pitches weren't exactly lively either. In Zimbabwe, the pitches are typically flat and even in England the pitches are getting flatter and flatter every year.

damn straight

 

[tooextracool]

BTW, Anil never took 6/12 again WI in a Test match. It was an ODI game which was almost an year after the England series and most of the batsmen were Tailenders

taking 6-12 in an ODI match is quite an achievement. i can understand if it were 5-50 or something then it was more likely a case of the bowler buying his wickets.6-12 shows that the batsmen had serious problems against and in an ODI match where the pitches tend to be flatter then the 4th and 5th day of a test match,that is quite an achievment.
and as far as the batsmen being tailenders goes,2 of them included hooper and adams,2 of the best players of spin bowlers in the entire side.roland holder and cummins were no mugs with the bat either so only the last 2 wickets were really tailenders

 

[tooextracool]

Now this is bordering on lunacy.....Chauhan better then Harbhajan ?? Are you out of your mind.... have you seen Chauhan bowl ? The flattest stock offie that you can see, is now better then Harbhajan who ranks as one of the better spinners to come around for the Indian team after Kumble ! You need to take a chill pill man..... these debates are really driving you nuts and you are trying to prove your point by resorting to absurdity.

from cricinfo:

"When Ajit Wadekar became the Indian coach in the 1992-93 season, he formulated a strategy for victory at home: select 3 spinners to exploit under-prepared wickets. Rajesh Chauhan was selected as the off-spinner to compliment Kumble and Raju. Just when the trio was becoming as deadly as India's famous spin trio of the 70's for visiting batsmen, disaster struck. Chauhan's action was questioned and instead of fighting it out like the Sri Lankan board did with respect to Muralitharan, BCCI decided to drop Chauhan even though he was never no-balled in a match. While in the wilderness, Chauhan continued to bowl well in the domestics and picked up 55 wickets in the 1996-97 Ranji Trophy. In 1997, a BCCI special committee cleared him. He was recalled for the 1997-98 tour of Sri Lanka, as the selectors overcame the mental barrier of picking a cricketer who is 30-plus. His most memorable performance since has been with the bat - a last over 6 to carry India to a sensational victory vs Pakistan in Karachi. He also bowled beautifully against Sri Lanka in the Mumbai test (figures of 4-48 and 3-59) which India almost won. This spirited off-spinner is able to exploit turning tracks and tests the best of batsmen with a teasing line and length. Looking back, he admits that that the failure to force a victory against the West Indies in the Nagpur Test of the '94 series was a low point in his career. This cricketer projects a rare faculty in the Indian domestic scene - courage in the face of adversity. He believes that one has to be positive and do his best to be in the reckoning. Unfortunately continuing doubts about the legality of his action combined with mediocre performances has seen him drop out of contention for the Indian side. ("Roving" Eye and Sougata Mukherjea , Sep 1999 "

perhaps i was exaggerating a bit and chauhan isnt better than harbhajan but i would definetly rate him as good as harbhajan who is more of a 1 series wonder than anything else. chauhan turned the ball just as much as harbhajan and his accuracy impeccable,miles ahead of harbhajan's.chauhan was never given an extended run with the indian team due to his controversial action as is mentioned in the article otherwise he would definetly have been a world class bowler.

 

[DJ]

"tendulkar= the most overated player EVER!!"

Amen to that. Statistically he will rank among the top 3 batsmen to ever play the game, but realistically not many of those who actually saw him play will even consider him among the top 3 of his generation. Too many inconsequential innings. Eye-candy, nothing more.

 

[aussie_beater]

and i thought lions81 was dyslexic!

Oh come off it !! ..... give me a straight answer, why you think Multan is not non-flat in your opinion, or stop bitching about it.

there are several factors u need to take into account there:the quality of batting,bowling,fielding,pitch conditions etc

So tell me what limits each of those factors have for a pitch to qualify as non-flat in your opinion. Your assessment is so subjective that the truth is that you also cannot define it properly. You have pre-concieved notions that if so and so batsman who by historical records hasn't scored much in so and so country, scored runs in this pitch then it must have been flat although that other team had good bowlers who by the way must have been bowling crap too on that same day. And you are ready to comment on all of this, even when you haven't seen the match or the players at all....

 

[aussie_beater]

from cricinfo:

"When Ajit Wadekar became the Indian coach in the 1992-93 season, he formulated a strategy for victory at home: select 3 spinners to exploit under-prepared wickets. Rajesh Chauhan was selected as the off-spinner to compliment Kumble and Raju. Just when the trio was becoming as deadly as India's famous spin trio of the 70's for visiting batsmen, disaster struck. Chauhan's action was questioned and instead of fighting it out like the Sri Lankan board did with respect to Muralitharan, BCCI decided to drop Chauhan even though he was never no-balled in a match. While in the wilderness, Chauhan continued to bowl well in the domestics and picked up 55 wickets in the 1996-97 Ranji Trophy. In 1997, a BCCI special committee cleared him. He was recalled for the 1997-98 tour of Sri Lanka, as the selectors overcame the mental barrier of picking a cricketer who is 30-plus. His most memorable performance since has been with the bat - a last over 6 to carry India to a sensational victory vs Pakistan in Karachi. He also bowled beautifully against Sri Lanka in the Mumbai test (figures of 4-48 and 3-59) which India almost won. This spirited off-spinner is able to exploit turning tracks and tests the best of batsmen with a teasing line and length. Looking back, he admits that that the failure to force a victory against the West Indies in the Nagpur Test of the '94 series was a low point in his career. This cricketer projects a rare faculty in the Indian domestic scene - courage in the face of adversity. He believes that one has to be positive and do his best to be in the reckoning. Unfortunately continuing doubts about the legality of his action combined with mediocre performances has seen him drop out of contention for the Indian side. ("Roving" Eye and Sougata Mukherjea , Sep 1999 "

perhaps i was exaggerating a bit and chauhan isnt better than harbhajan but i would definetly rate him as good as harbhajan who is more of a 1 series wonder than anything else. chauhan turned the ball just as much as harbhajan and his accuracy impeccable,miles ahead of harbhajan's.chauhan was never given an extended run with the indian team due to his controversial action as is mentioned in the article otherwise he would definetly have been a world class bowler.

Well, if all your cricketing judgement is from reading obituaries, then God help you.

And FYI..... Harbhajan has taken 5 wickets in an innings 11 times in his career of which only four were against Australia in that series.... that sure makes him a one series wonder, right ? You need to stop smoking whatever it it that you are smoking, 'coz its not helping you

 

[aussie_beater]

taking 6-12 in an ODI match is quite an achievement. i can understand if it were 5-50 or something then it was more likely a case of the bowler buying his wickets.6-12 shows that the batsmen had serious problems against and in an ODI match where the pitches tend to be flatter then the 4th and 5th day of a test match,that is quite an achievment.
and as far as the batsmen being tailenders goes,2 of them included hooper and adams,2 of the best players of spin bowlers in the entire side.roland holder and cummins were no mugs with the bat either so only the last 2 wickets were really tailenders

Again my question is, did you see that match ?? If you haven't seen that match how can you be so sure what was going on that day on that pitch. Just because Hooper and Adams were among the players who got out, doesn't mean a thing.

Yes Kumble bowled well that day, but did you notice a deteriorating Eden Gardens pitch and that too in the night with the dew taking effect and with most WI batsman without a clue how to handle Kumble's topspinner with all the variable bounce in the pitch.

 

[marc71178]

Statistically he will rank among the top 3 batsmen to ever play the game, but realistically not many of those who actually saw him play will even consider him among the top 3 of his generation.

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?

 

[luckyeddie]

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?

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh come off it !! ..... give me a straight answer, why you think Multan is not non-flat in your opinion, or stop bitching about it.
So tell me what limits each of those factors have for a pitch to qualify as non-flat in your opinion. Your assessment is so subjective that the truth is that you also cannot define it properly. You have pre-concieved notions that if so and so batsman who by historical records hasn't scored much in so and so country, scored runs in this pitch then it must have been flat although that other team had good bowlers who by the way must have been bowling crap too on that same day. And you are ready to comment on all of this, even when you haven't seen the match or the players at all....

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).

 

[tooextracool]

Well, if all your cricketing judgement is from reading obituaries, then God help you.

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.

And FYI..... Harbhajan has taken 5 wickets in an innings 11 times in his career of which only four were against Australia in that series.... that sure makes him a one series wonder, right ? You need to stop smoking whatever it it that you are smoking, 'coz its not helping you

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.