Is Tendulkar a choker

[Anil]

OK keep your hair on.

would really like to, but becoming very difficult as the years go by, thanks anyway for the words of encouragement....

Was just saying your figures don't prove than Tendulkar has been consistent away from home recently.

those were meant to prove something else and it does prove it....i am not blind, i can see that he has been going through a rough, uneven patch in tests(not one dayers where he has been his consistent self for the most part) for some time now with strings of low scores interspersed with some biggies.....for me, seeing what i have seen in the past from him, his biggies combined with his one day form and his still young age(31) tells me that he is definitely not over-the-hill and capable of more stirring deeds whereas you look at the string of low scores that was not that usual in the past and conclude that he is past his best. i can understand why you would think that even if i don't agree, but no one who knows his cricket can call him a flat-track bully and a choker.

 

[luckyeddie]

. i can understand why you would think that even if i don't agree, but no one who knows his cricket can call him a flat-track bully and a choker.

A wise man once said that ignorance is bliss.
All I will say is that there must be some very happy people around.

(sorry, Oscar)

 

[a massive zebra]

no one who knows his cricket can call him a flat-track bully and a choker.

I didn't. Although he often does fail in pressure situations.

 

[Raj123]

Although he often does fail in pressure situations.

looks like TEC and zebra are trying to impress each other. fellas, lets give the two some privacy shall we.

 

[a massive zebra]

looks like TEC and zebra are trying to impress each other. fellas, lets give the two some privacy shall we.

Some people.

No really.....

 

[masterblaster]

Tendulkar's got a few more years left in his career, lets see what he can do, right?

 

[Eclipse]

Let's not even go to the "pitches in NZ" discussion..... and what was your flat-pitch definition again ? Does WACA(Perth), Johannesburg, Capetown, Headingley and the likes fall under that definition ?

Why do so many people have this idea that the WACA is a bowlers pitch??

Ok so it's possibly the most challanging pitch a batsman coming from the sub-contenent can face but the reality is that on most occasions the track is as dead set flat as any you will see.

Yes it usualy swings quite a bit with the freamantle doctor and yes it bounces way way more than anywere else in the world but it's probably the best stroke makers pitch In Australia.

High Class batsman should thrive at the WACA more so than any ground in Australia once they ajust to the extra bounce.

 

[tooextracool]

Let's not even go to the "pitches in NZ" discussion..... and what was your flat-pitch definition again ? Does WACA(Perth), Johannesburg, Capetown, Headingley and the likes fall under that definition ?

johannesburg and perth happened way to long ago and quite frankly if we are going to look at performances from 15 yrs ago then we can bring up hick's brilliant 178 in 1993 against india in mumbai when the next highest score in the english team was 49 and convince you that he isnt a flat pitch bully and should be in the side.

headingly 2002- i dont know what makes people believe that headingly is a bowlers paradise.its quite simple about any pitch in england...when the sun shines its as flat as any wicket u'll see...when its overcast the ball seams around . you only have to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide from caddick and hoggard who never got their line right at all in that innings.

cape town 1997- if your going to tell me that a wicket on which 5 centuries were scored on in just the 1st 2 innings with 2 of them being quicker than a run a ball is not a flat wicket then surely ur out of mind. the only reason that india were 58/5 was because 2 of those wickets included raman and prasad who cant bat for toffee and the other 2 consisted of dravid opening(we all know abt how bad he is at that) and laxman(the australia killer).that being said that was one of tendulkar's better innings where he didnt actually choke under a bit of pressure but surely u cant tell me that 1 good performance out of 114 tests is something to ride home about.

btw my definition of a flat wicket is one that has consistent pace and bounce and that doesnt not offer too much lateral movement.

 

[Anil]

johannesburg and perth happened way to long ago and quite frankly if we are going to look at performances from 15 yrs ago then we can bring up hick's brilliant 178 in 1993 against india in mumbai when the next highest score in the english team was 49 and convince you that he isnt a flat pitch bully and should be in the side.

but i thought, india was full of flat pitches and none of sachin's indian innings count anyway....so how does hick's innings count? or are the pitches flat only when the indians(specifically sachin) bat....?? in any case, the comparison to graeme hick(of all people) is so very apt...

that being said that was one of tendulkar's better innings where he didnt actually choke under a bit of pressure but surely u cant tell me that 1 good performance out of 114 tests is something to ride home about.

absolutely not....it is a modern day miracle how he managed to play international cricket for such a long time on the strength of that one "better innings" .....talk about an objective, unprejudiced view, man you rock...

 

[aussie_beater]

headingly 2002- i dont know what makes people believe that headingly is a bowlers paradise.its quite simple about any pitch in england...when the sun shines its as flat as any wicket u'll see...when its overcast the ball seams around . you only have to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide from caddick and hoggard who never got their line right at all in that innings.

So just because Ganguly and Bangar scored, shows that the pitch was flat...eh ? And now you have another factor in the equation, that even if the pitch wasn't flat the bowling sucked and so it doesn't count.Man, what kind of tint you have on your glasses ??

cape town 1997- if your going to tell me that a wicket on which 5 centuries were scored on in just the 1st 2 innings with 2 of them being quicker than a run a ball is not a flat wicket then surely ur out of mind. the only reason that india were 58/5 was because 2 of those wickets included raman and prasad who cant bat for toffee and the other 2 consisted of dravid opening(we all know abt how bad he is at that) and laxman(the australia killer).that being said that was one of tendulkar's better innings where he didnt actually choke under a bit of pressure but surely u cant tell me that 1 good performance out of 114 tests is something to ride home about.

Again, just because 5 centuries were scored in the two first innings, means that the pitch was flat....eh ? Going by that logic, no batsman has ever scored decently in your non-flat pitch, right ? So what is the highest score by your theory that can be scored in a "non-flat" pitch of yours ? You need help mate....stop whatever it is that you are smoking

btw my definition of a flat wicket is one that has consistent pace and bounce and that doesnt not offer too much lateral movement.

I think the pitch in Multan in Pakistan recently, had consistent pace and bounce. So where does it fall in your definition.....the flat or the round world.

 

[tooextracool]

So just because Ganguly and Bangar scored, shows that the pitch was flat...eh ? And now you have another factor in the equation, that even if the pitch wasn't flat the bowling sucked and so it doesn't count.Man, what kind of tint you have on your glasses ??

nope i watched that game,there was a bit of movement with the new ball but by the time tendulkar came in the sun was out and the pitch was completely flat. yes the quality of bowling definetly counts....like scoring a century against a zim attack in seaming conditions wouldnt count as a great innings. the bowling sucked because england should have got more wickets when the new ball was doing a bit and i remember hoggard throwing it wide outside off stump and caddick bowling too short. and if ganguly aint a flat pitch bully then you should just stop watching cricket.

Again, just because 5 centuries were scored in the two first innings, means that the pitch was flat....eh ? Going by that logic, no batsman has ever scored decently in your non-flat pitch, right ? So what is the highest score by your theory that can be scored in a "non-flat" pitch of yours ? You need help mate....stop whatever it is that you are smoking :

5 centuries were scored, 2 at more than a run a ball,only 7 SA wickets were taken in the first innings,every SA batsman got a start(bar pollock)....yes even adam bacher got 25.surely the conditions couldnt have been any better for batting.

I think the pitch in Multan in Pakistan recently, had consistent pace and bounce. So where does it fall in your definition.....the flat or the round world.

multan was definetly a flat pitch.....unless u believe what javed miandad says.

 

[Lions81]

yes the quality of bowling definetly counts

Yes, those Pakistanis sure did have a bad bowling attack. Akhtar, who would walk onto every cricket team in the world and be handed the new ball, and Sami, probably the third fastest bowler in the world. I guess they don't count. Bring on Hoggard and Jones!

 

[tooextracool]

but i thought, india was full of flat pitches and none of sachin's indian innings count anyway....so how does hick's innings count? or are the pitches flat only when the indians(specifically sachin) bat....?? in any case, the comparison to graeme hick(of all people) is so very apt...

i never said that ALL wickets in india are flat. generally the pitch deteriorates
as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.(not all wickets)

absolutely not....it is a modern day miracle how he managed to play international cricket for such a long time on the strength of that one "better innings" .....talk about an objective, unprejudiced view, man you rock...

nope id pick him in the indian team for every series. i reiterate my point which is that he is a good batsman but he isnt GREAT as he is made out to be

 

[Lions81]

as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.

Oh, so you mean they're like every single other wicket in the world?

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, those Pakistanis sure did have a bad bowling attack. Akhtar, who would walk onto every cricket team in the world and be handed the new ball, and Sami, probably the third fastest bowler in the world. I guess they don't count. Bring on Hoggard and Jones!

you are completely out of context here. i was saying that the english bowling against india in the 3rd test at headingly was poor...i dont know from where u bring up akhtar and sami from.
i must remember to put some money in the dyslexics trust tomorrow

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, so you mean they're like every single other wicket in the world?

ahh yes antigua was a batsman's nightmare on the 4th and 5th day wasnt it?

 

[Lions81]

nope i watched that game,there was a bit of movement with the new ball but by the time tendulkar came in the sun was out and the pitch was completely flat. yes the quality of bowling definetly counts....like scoring a century against a zim attack in seaming conditions wouldnt count as a great innings. the bowling sucked because england should have got more wickets when the new ball was doing a bit and i remember hoggard throwing it wide outside off stump and caddick bowling too short. and if ganguly aint a flat pitch bully then you should just stop watching cricket.



5 centuries were scored, 2 at more than a run a ball,only 7 SA wickets were taken in the first innings,every SA batsman got a start(bar pollock)....yes even adam bacher got 25.surely the conditions couldnt have been any better for batting.



multan was definetly a flat pitch.....unless u believe what javed miandad says.

Ok there's your entire quote. I was especially referencing your part about scoring a century against Zimbabwe because they suck and then at the end you mentioned Multan and I naturally assumed once again you were saying the only reason India managed to put up 600 was because of the pitch and I though I'd mention the fellows doing the bowling. Put a dollar into the fund for me too.

 

[Lions81]

ahh yes antigua was a batsman's nightmare on the 4th and 5th day wasnt it?

Certainly was harder than on Day 1. So it went from Ultra Easy to Not too Shabby

 

[Sehwag309]

They should make a pitch with bumps, potholes, super green grass and make sachin play in it againsts Akhtar, harmison, lee, murali..Then let's see how he fairs

 

[Lions81]

They should make a pitch with bumps, potholes, super green grass and make sachin play in it againsts Akhtar, harmison, lee, murali..Then let's see how he fairs

Well if Tendulkar gets out first ball, then it was a good, seaming pitch, or a hard, bouncy pitch, or a greentop. If he scores anything above 49, it was a damn flat pitch.