Is Tendulkar a choker

[tooextracool]

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.

umm the pitch was flat so what is the point in bringing up the bowling?i dont care if ur glenn mcgrath or curtly ambrose bowling on that pitch....when a pitch is flat there is going to be a handful of runs scored on it. that being said the bowling was useless in that test match...akhtar looked flat throughout the series and once again showed us his inconsistent self.hes the fastest bowler in the world yes...but that doesnt guarantee him a place in any side in the world let alone the new ball.u can rate him as high as u want but IMO hes a 1 deadly spell every 5 matches kind of bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

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

heres my quote:"as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.(not all wickets)"

so ur proving me wrong that every wicket in the world doesnt become "very difficult" to bat on by saying that it goes from "ultra easy to not too shabby"?
1 more dollar to the fund.

 

[Sehwag309]

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.

Vow, I knew he had the ability to hit boundaries of good balls, but changing the charateristic of a pitch is remarkable

This is my Favorite shot

 

[Lions81]

Vow, I knew he had the ability to hit boundaries of good balls, but changing the charateristic of a pitch is remarkable

This is my Favorite shot

Yes, but tooextracool truly believes Tendulkar has this power.

 

[Lions81]

heres my quote:"as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.(not all wickets)"

so ur proving me wrong that every wicket in the world doesnt become "very difficult" to bat on by saying that it goes from "ultra easy to not too shabby"?
1 more dollar to the fund.

No I wasn't trying to disprove that every wicket doesnt get harder to bat on, what are you talking about? I was questioning your statement that thats a trait inherent only to the pitches in India, which is what I gathered from what you said, to which I responded, oh you mean like every other pitch in the world, meaning it's not only Indian pitches that get harder to bat on. Maybe while you're at the fund, they can give you a pamphlet on how to overcome it!

 

[tooextracool]

No I wasn't trying to disprove that every wicket doesnt get harder to bat on, what are you talking about? I was questioning your statement that thats a trait inherent only to the pitches in India, which is what I gathered from what you said, to which I responded, oh you mean like every other pitch in the world, meaning it's not only Indian pitches that get harder to bat on. Maybe while you're at the fund, they can give you a pamphlet on how to overcome it!

well i never stated that it was a trait inherent to only pitches in india. i said that generally pitches in india become very difficult to bat on on the 4th and 5th day(not mentioning anything about the pitches in the ROW). dont worry when i get the pamphlet i'll send it to you in the mail and explain everything that u dont understand.

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

And I watched that game too.....but ofcourse not with the glasses that you were wearing ....Tendulkar and Ganguly blasted the hell out of the bowling even in bad light and fairly seaming conditions. And what marks do you give to a batsman who has the capability of destrying the confidence of a good bowler and taking advantage of that.....does that fit into your calculations.

Ganguly has known limitations on his batting where he cannot handle the rising ball too well, but he also has excellent averages in England to prove that he doesn't only thrive in absolutely dead pitches, but he can bat quite well if he plays to his strengths. So if you discount every pitch where he scores runs as flat, I think its you who should stop watching cricket.....atleast not with the glasses that you are wearing.

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 have seen that match live......and I think I was fortunate enough to do that because I saw one of the most astounding partnership in test match cricket between Sachin and Azhar, against a very menacing pace attack.... so don't tell me what it was or what it was not.

Answer me one thing..... how many runs need to be scored on an average by the top order batsman and lower order batsman to qualify a pitch as a non-flat pitch by your definition....because it seems that anytime you see runs being scored, it becomes a non-flat pitch. I reckon only minefields of the likes of the surfaces in NZ for the India-NZ series of 2003(that sometimes are called pitches by some nuts) and the likes of the Bangalore surface of the 1987 test between India-Pak and the Madras surface for the match between India-WI in 1988, will qualify as non-flat pitch in your book..... if that's the case, I rest my argument and I would recommend that you start watching something else then cricket.

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

Well, how come most of the contemporary greats like Ponting, Hayden, Lara and others or even someone like Viv Richards, haven't scored more then one 100 at WACA ? Steve Waugh doesn't even have a 100 to his name at the WACA out of a total of 32 that he scored. Does that point to something that WACA has been a challenge for most batsman over the years ?

 

[Sanz]

Okay here are some conclusions :-

1. When Sachin Scores - It must have been on a flat pitch
2. When Sachin Scores - It must have been a no Pressure Situation
3. When top order scores and Sachin Scores - Credit should go to the top order for making things easy for Sachin
4. When Top order Fails and Sachin Scores - Top order got out to foolish shots and read No.1
5. When Sachin Scores - It was not an important game at all
6. When Sachin Scores and Team wins - Credit should go to dravid or Laxman or some xyz
7. When Sachin scores 50% of the runs and Team fails - Sachin Choked.


1. When Sachin fails and others score - Sachin choked
2. When Sachin fails and team fails - Sachin Choked
3. When Sachin fails in any game - It becomes an important Game
4. When Sachin fails in any situation - It becomes a presssure situation

 

[maxpower]

for tooextracool here are some of your posts quoted:

on sachin
"he is more of a flat pitch bully "
pffffffff

"im not talking about pulling off a kallis but like what dravid did in pakistan and australia....or laxman in australia?"
oh ok so 241* does not count I guess

"incase u missed the ind vs australia series let me remind you that the pitches in australia were dead flat!"
So if sachin scores on "flat" track he should not get any credit, but if dravid or anyone does hail them.

"as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.(not all wickets)"
Again dravid's 270 were on 2 and 3rd day what i guess would be a flat track if sachin had scored runs, why are you giving dravid credit for it ?

"btw my definition of a flat wicket is one that has consistent pace and bounce and that doesnt not offer too much lateral movement."
Does bowler ability not count at all ?
"akhtar looked flat throughout the series and once again showed us his inconsistent self"

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

pathan and balaji moved the ball in multan and the rest of the test matches too, so akhtar's and other's failure is sachin's fault too !!

 

[Anil]

Okay here are some conclusions :-

1. When Sachin Scores - It must have been on a flat pitch
2. When Sachin Scores - It must have been a no Pressure Situation
3. When top order scores and Sachin Scores - Credit should go to the top order for making things easy for Sachin
4. When Top order Fails and Sachin Scores - Top order got out to foolish shots and read No.1
5. When Sachin Scores - It was not an important game at all
6. When Sachin Scores and Team wins - Credit should go to dravid or Laxman or some xyz
7. When Sachin scores 50% of the runs and Team fails - Sachin Choked.


1. When Sachin fails and others score - Sachin choked
2. When Sachin fails and team fails - Sachin Choked
3. When Sachin fails in any game - It becomes an important Game
4. When Sachin fails in any situation - It becomes a presssure situation

Excellent conclusions! I would add three more:

8. When Sachin scores - The bowlers were mediocre
9. When Sachin scores - The bowlers are good, but the bowling was wayward and mediocre
10. When Sachin scores - The bowlers are good, but the pitch was too flat

 

[Anil]

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)

so hick's century was on a "deteriorating non-flat wicket" while sachin's substantial number of indian centuries were scored on flat pitches and/or against mediocre attacks....makes sense, that....thanks for explaining....

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

....nah.....you are too kind...he is just the luckiest guy in cricket history....

 

[Sanz]

so hick's century was on a "deteriorating non-flat wicket"

Deteriorating ???? Didn't Hick score that century on the second day of the test ?? Dont tell me that pitch started breaking on the second day itself.

 

[Lions81]

Deteriorating ???? Didn't Hick score that century on the second day of the test ?? Dont tell me that pitch started breaking on the second day itself.

It started deteriorating the second Sachin's foot touched it.

 

[Anil]

It started deteriorating the second Sachin's foot touched it.

no..no...sachin's foot healed it, you see.....all the cracks disappeared, the firmness reduced so that the bounce became less...etc...etc....incredible guy, don't you think?

 

[Eclipse]

Well, how come most of the contemporary greats like Ponting, Hayden, Lara and others or even someone like Viv Richards, haven't scored more then one 100 at WACA ? Steve Waugh doesn't even have a 100 to his name at the WACA out of a total of 32 that he scored. Does that point to something that WACA has been a challenge for most batsman over the years ?

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.

 

[tooextracool]

And what marks do you give to a batsman who has the capability of destrying the confidence of a good bowler and taking advantage of that.....does that fit into your calculations.

not much on a flat wicket. there was movement with the new ball in the 1st session and i clearly remember hoggard and caddick bowling ridiculously short and wide right from the very first over. no the confidence of the bowler hadnt been shattered...they were just completely out of rhythm from ball one.

I have seen that match live......and I think I was fortunate enough to do that because I saw one of the most astounding partnership in test match cricket between Sachin and Azhar, against a very menacing pace attack.... so don't tell me what it was or what it was not.

yep you were fortunate to witness 2 good batsman giving SA a flat track belting. tendulkar is good enough to score off good bowlers on flat tracks....but definetly not good enough to score on tracks that offer a little bit to the bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

"im not talking about pulling off a kallis but like what dravid did in pakistan and australia....or laxman in australia?"
oh ok so 241* does not count I guess

you obviously havent read the entire sentence. here is the entire quote
"has tendulkar ever had a consistent run of good scores outside of india in tests?im not talking about pulling off a kallis but like what dravid did in pakistan and australia....or laxman in australia?its almost too predictable that we'll see sachin score one century and one 50 odd and then fail in the rest of the series...."

so you're disproving me by giving me his one success after 6 failures in australia?u call that a consistent run?

"incase u missed the ind vs australia series let me remind you that the pitches in australia were dead flat!"
So if sachin scores on "flat" track he should not get any credit, but if dravid or anyone does hail them.

dravid has been consistent in many series all over the world.i was just citing examples of something similar to what i was talking about.

"as the days progress and on the 4th and 5th day they become very difficult to bat on.(not all wickets)"
Again dravid's 270 were on 2 and 3rd day what i guess would be a flat track if sachin had scored runs, why are you giving dravid credit for it ?]

again u fail to read....
1)i said wickets in INDIA generally deteriorate on days 4 and 5
2)note the use of the words "generally" and "not all wickets"
in fact this wicket eased out as the days progressed and got better for batting.pakistan were unlucky to have been batting in those seaming conditions on day 1.day 2 there was still a bit of movement and from day 3 onwards it was just completely flat.

"btw my definition of a flat wicket is one that has consistent pace and bounce and that doesnt not offer too much lateral movement."
Does bowler ability not count at all ?

it does but my point is that tendulkar can only play on flat wickets regardless of the bowling on it.

"akhtar looked flat throughout the series and once again showed us his inconsistent self"

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

pathan and balaji moved the ball in multan and the rest of the test matches too, so akhtar's and other's failure is sachin's fault too !!

pathan-is a genuine swing bowler and will get some amount of swing on most and balaji certainly didnt move the ball much in multan. pakistan batter poorly on that wicket to lose. i also notice how u consider wickets to either be completely flat for all 5 days or seaming around for all 5 days. balaji and pathan moved the ball around in the 1st innings against pakistan when the pitch was a seamers paradise really.

 

[tooextracool]

so hick's century was on a "deteriorating non-flat wicket" while sachin's substantial number of indian centuries were scored on flat pitches and/or against mediocre attacks....makes sense, that....thanks for explaining....

actually hicks performance was on a turning pitch against a good indian spin attack

 

[tooextracool]

Deteriorating ???? Didn't Hick score that century on the second day of the test ?? Dont tell me that pitch started breaking on the second day itself.

note the use of the words "generally" and "not all wickets"