Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[shankar]

Tendulkar's career needs to be appraised in 3 phases:

He averaged 58 over the first 13 years of his international career. Over this period, statistically he was by far the best batsman. See link. Among batsmen who've played at least 50 matches, his nearest competitor averages 5 runs lesser than him.

He then had a slump for 3 years (mysteriously coinciding with his tennis elbow) where he was very ordinary and came somewhat close to being dropped.

He has then had a rich vein of form since his comeback. But he has not really stood apart from his contemporaries as he did during his first 13 years.

Now, are the latter two periods a blot on his career? No. They're an additional bonus to his 13 year domination. They're only a problem for him if you compare him with a cricketer who also did his first feat, i.e. dominate over 13 years by as much of a margin as Sachin did and then continued to stay on top for 8 more years.

So to look at 21 years of Sachin together and say that he was only barely staying at the top is to commit a fallacy. This way of analysing puts an additional burden on Sachin to maintain his dominance over a period nearly twice as long as the batsmen he's compared to.

 

[abmk]

I meant in terms of bowlers like him. The last spinner near Warne played 50+ years ago. I bring that up with regards to how exceptional a player can be - like how few 16 year olds are successes at Test cricket.

depends on how you define exceptional. I could also say marshall was one of the very few short, but quick fast bowlers, that in addition to his complete record. Its not just the fact that Sachin debuted at 16 that made him exceptional, but the fact that he was very good almost right from the beginning

There's about as much chance of that happening as Tendulkar's debut being delayed and him failing in FC cricket and not getting a chance. The above is a prime example of the hype behind Tendulkar. Dude, the guy is only slightly better than Ponting - if that - what makes you think one would succeed where the other wouldn't?

really now ? Sachin was smashing domestic attacks since the age of 14. He wasn't going to fail in FC cricket after that when he was progressing and becoming better , was he ?

Ponting failing if he debuted at 16 is much more of a possibility , seeing as he didn't take the world by storm when he debuted at the age of around 20 .

Do you even see the difference in circumstances or you don't want to ? Sachin is being put in a situation that is quite easier than what actually happened to him and Ponting is being put in a situation that is more difficult than what actually happened to him.

How difficult is to think then the chance of Ponting failing in his alternate scenario is more than that of Sachin failing in his alternate scenario ?

 

[Ikki]

Exceptional being very rare. Otherwise, Sachin isn't that rare. As previously said, there are all-time greats with the bat almost every generation. What makes Sachin exceptional with respect to others is that he debuted early.

really now ? Sachin was smashing domestic attacks since the age of 14. He wasn't going to fail in FC cricket after that when he was progressing and becoming better , was he ?

Ponting failing if he debuted at 16 is much more of a possibility , seeing as he didn't take the world by storm when he debuted at the age of around 20 .

Do you even see the difference in circumstances or you don't want to ?

Ponting was one of the best batsmen in the country at 17 - and the standard of FC cricket of Australia during that time was far higher than what Tendulkar had played. He is probably Australia's greatest batsman after Bradman and is in the argument for that overall regardless of nationality. What makes you think, even if he failed at 16, that he wouldn't come back and still make his mark? Or what makes you think he'd fail at all? And who said he wasn't setting the world alight at 20? He almost scored 100 on debut and made his name in the first few years for playing some of the best pace bowlers of all-time exceptionally well. Assumptions my friend. What we do know is, like Sachin, Ponting was a prodigy who just debuted later because the Australian system wouldn't have done what the Indians did with Sachin. Point being; there is no reason to doubt Ponting anymore than you would Sachin. They are more or less of the same ability.

 

[abmk]

Ponting was one of the best batsmen in the country at 17 - and the standard of FC cricket of Australia during that time was far higher than what Tendulkar had played. He is probably Australia's greatest batsman after Bradman and is in the argument for that overall regardless of nationality. What makes you think, even if he failed at 16, that he wouldn't come back and still make his mark? Or what makes you think he'd fail at all? Assumptions my friend. What we do know is, like Sachin, Ponting was a prodigy who just debuted later because the Australian system wouldn't have done what the Indians did with Sachin.

I didn't say he'd fail for sure , I said there is a chance he could. Read again.

I only objected to your statement that Ponting would've had more centuries had he debuted earlier. He could've failed earlier and forced to make more runs in FC cricket to make a comeback, maybe reducing his no of centuries to less than what it is now ?

What we do know is that never happened to Sachin. He was a success from age 16 onwards

What we also know that Sachin @ the age of 18 in conditions alien to him was hitting excellent knocks and getting plaudits for it ( Eng,Aus,SA) ( remember merv saying to AB that this little prick is going to get more runs than you AB .... ? ), something that Ponting wasn't even at the age of 21-22 ......

 

[abmk]

Exceptional being very rare. Otherwise, Sachin isn't that rare. As previously said, there are all-time greats with the bat almost every generation. What makes Sachin exceptional with respect to others is that he debuted early.

ditto for warne then. Like I said,

macko,mcgrath,murali,hadlee,lillee,imran,holding,ambrose,donald,garner,walsh,roberts,wasim,waqar .......

There are all-time greats with the ball almost every generation.

You insist Sachin is over-rated or over-praised. Maybe he is .I say warne is even more in that regard ( though I love seeing warne bowling ) - didn't do well against the best players of spin - India - both home and away . got hammered big time in tests and ODIs almost every time ... Didn't really have a measure of the top batsmen like say a Mcgrath did . Yet gets praised a lot more than mcgrath

 

[abmk]

Pardon? Almost all his ODIs were played between 2-5 and he had no 100s in 78 ODIs. His position cannot be excused. Especially if the justification of everything else he has done is that he is not the norm, very special and would succeed in a myriad of circumstances. There are lesser players who, even if they were shifted around, would have had a 100 in 78 matches. Think of it this way: Tendulkar has a career record of about 1 100 in every 9.2 innings...yet somehow him playing outside of strictly #1 means he would go 0 for 78? It's a preposterous claim. Just concede the guy started off slowly...it's okay, he wouldn't be the first or last all-time great to do it.

Here, in Sachin's first 70 matches, before he started opening, there were just 6 centuries from players who played from no 3 and below

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

just to give you an idea of how rare centuries were at that stage in ODIs ....

He did start off slowly in ODIs , esp. when compared to tests, but just looking at centuries is not the way to go about it ....

 

[Ikki]

If Ponting were to debut early and fail then this would be a pointless discussion - so of course, I am treating it as a given. My point is if Ponting had debuted earlier, he would have played more matches and hence had more chance to score 100s. Even if he averaged 20 but scored 2 100s, that is 2 more 100s than he has now. And that matters because we are talking about aggregate totals here. Not 100s per inning.

You keep undermining what Ponting was back then. Rod Marsh had said he was the best teenage batsman he'd ever seen (yes, better than Tendulkar). By the time he'd debuted he was undeniable. He was averaging some ridiculous numbers against Australian domestic attacks that were better than many Test attacks.

 

[Ikki]

ditto for warne then. Like I said,

macko,mcgrath,murali,hadlee,lillee,imran,holding,ambrose,donald,garner,walsh,roberts,wasim,waqar .......

There are all-time greats with the ball almost every generation.

You insist Sachin is over-rated or over-praised. Maybe he is .I say warne is even more in that regard ( though I love seeing warne bowling ) - didn't do well against the best players of spin - India - both home and away . got hammered big time in tests and ODIs almost every time ... Didn't really have a measure of the top batsmen like say a Mcgrath did . Yet gets praised a lot more than mcgrath

Because Warne is a legspinner and Sachin is a middle-order batsman. Sachin barely has much, if anything, over his contemporary greats - let alone the many other all-time greats of past generations. So pretending as if he is some uber-special genius is a bit myopic. There are maybe only 3 other bowlers in the history of cricket that can even compare to Warne (Murali, Tiger and Grimmett). Warne did debut somewhat young but that doesn't make him exceptional. He is exceptional for being, probably/arguably, the greatest legspinner - if not spinner - of them all.

Here, in Sachin's first 70 matches, before he started opening, there were just 6 centuries from players who played from no 3 and below

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

just to give you an idea of how rare centuries were at that stage in ODIs ....

He did start off slowly in ODIs , esp. when compared to tests, but just looking at centuries is not the way to go about it ....

It wasn't rare. Take a closer look. Most of the names on that list haven't even played 10 ODIs in that time. From 89 to 94.

 

[abmk]

If Ponting were to debut early and fail then this would be a pointless discussion - so of course, I am treating it as a given. My point is if Ponting had debuted earlier, he would have played more matches and hence had more chance to score 100s. Even if he averaged 20 but scored 2 100s, that is 2 more 100s than he has now. And that matters because we are talking about aggregate totals here. Not 100s per inning.

Firstly, that isn't a given, that's my point.

Secondly, see the possibility of a partial failure as well, then possibility of injuries later on his career ( at an earlier stage than he's getting in the real scenario ) because of debuting earlier etc etc ... There are quite a few variables

You keep undermining what Ponting was back then. Rod Marsh had said he was the best teenage batsman he'd ever seen (yes, better than Tendulkar). By the time he'd debuted he was undeniable. He was averaging some ridiculous numbers against Australian domestic attacks that were better than many Test attacks.

really, now ? I said conditions alien to him and praise from opposition players ( current/even former ) , not Rod Marsh !

 

[Sanz]

Exceptional being very rare. Otherwise, Sachin isn't that rare.

Yes, we produce a batsman of his caliber every season, Don't we ? Even if we count Ponting and Lara as his equals, that's 3 batsmen in last 21 years. I call it rare. In other words we have not had someone that good since 1994-95.

As previously said, there are all-time greats with the bat almost every generation. What makes Sachin exceptional with respect to others is that he debuted early.

Exception is in the fact that he is still going with the same rate as if he is at his peak after 21 years. Where one of his contemporaries retired 5 years ago and another one is in slump for last 4 years. As of now there is a gap of 30 100s and that gap has widened in last 4 years.

If Ponting comes back from this slump and hits a purple patch again and closes in the gap then I am sure he will be more worthy of an equal. If he does not then I am sorry that debate was over in 2007.

 

[sachin200]

Wasn't Ponting dropped more than once from test team ???

Sachin was never dropped !!!!

 

[Ikki]

Firstly, that isn't a given, that's my point.

Secondly, see the possibility of a partial failure as well, then possibility of injuries later on his career ( at an earlier stage than he's getting in the real scenario ) because of debuting earlier etc etc ... There are quite a few variables

Yes, but neither it is it a given that Tendulkar will come in at 20 and do well. Nothing is a given. You say but there is less chance of Ponting as a teen doing well than Tendulkar as a 20 year old. But, honestly, attacks like NZ, SL, Zim and even India's away weren't going to trouble Ponting even in his teens. Some of the attacks he faced in domestic cricket were that good. IIRC he had a merry old time against Warne and McGrath back in domestic cricket.

really, now ? I said conditions alien to him and praise from opposition players ( current/even former ) , not Rod Marsh !

He hadn't debuted...how was anyone bar the Academy going to know about him? If Tendulkar hadn't debuted, who was going to know about him?

 

[abmk]

Because Warne is a legspinner and Sachin is a middle-order batsman. Sachin barely has much, if anything, over his contemporary greats - let alone the many other all-time greats of past generations. So pretending as if he is some uber-special genius is a bit myopic. There are maybe only 3 other bowlers in the history of cricket that can even compare to Warne (Murali, Tiger and Grimmett). Warne did debut somewhat young but that doesn't make him exceptional. He is exceptional for being, probably/arguably, the greatest legspinner - if not spinner - of them all.

Jeez, firstly the question was simple, why separate spinners and pacers ? Oh and maybe Laker deserves a place there !?

We all know spinners are rarer and middle-order batsmen are MUCH MORE in number ... Its how cricket is ...

We are talking about quality here .. first and foremost.

It wasn't rare. Take a closer look. Most of the names on that list haven't even played 10 ODIs in that time. From 89 to 94.

oh and care to look at a period immediately after that , similar no of matches ?

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

57 centuries compared to the 36 centuries in the period before that

 

[abmk]

Yes, but neither it is it a given that Tendulkar will come in at 20 and do well. Nothing is a given. You say but there is less chance of Ponting as a teen doing well than Tendulkar as a 20 year old. But, honestly, attacks like NZ, SL, Zim and even India's away weren't going to trouble Ponting even in his teens. Some of the attacks he faced in domestic cricket were that good. IIRC he had a merry old time against Warne and McGrath back in domestic cricket.

all that does nothing to refute the bolded part, does it ? I didn't say it was a given, but if asked to chose and considering probability, you'd go with the bold part , wouldn't you ?

He hadn't debuted...how was anyone bar the Academy going to know about him? If Tendulkar hadn't debuted, who was going to know about him?

I was talking about praises for ponting 2-3 years after he made his debut . Wasn't that a bit obvious ?

 

[Sanz]

You keep undermining what Ponting was back then. Rod Marsh had said he was the best teenage batsman he'd ever seen (yes, better than Tendulkar). By the time he'd debuted he was undeniable. He was averaging some ridiculous numbers against Australian domestic attacks that were better than many Test attacks.

Rod Marsh never saw Tendulkar before he made his International debut. When Ponting was 16, Rod Marsh knew nothing about him. So no way Ponting was going to make his debut @ Sachin's age.



"I first came across Ricky Ponting in the summer of 1991-92 in Adelaide. He had come over on a scholarship from Launceston in Tasmania to spend a week at the Academy. He was 16 and I knew nothing about him"

The Ashes: Rod Marsh on the brilliance of Ricky Ponting | Sport | The Observer

 

[Ikki]

Yes, we produce a batsman of his caliber every season, Don't we ? Even if we count Ponting and Lara as his equals, that's 3 batsmen in last 21 years. I call it rare. In other words we have not had someone that good since 1994-95.

In Tendulkar's playing time alone: Ponting, Lara, Border, Richards, Waugh, Dravid, Kallis all overlapped with his career and then there are guys just slightly beneath that as well (Hayden, Sehwag, etc). Before there is Gavaskar, Chappell, Miandad, Barrington, Sobers, Hutton, Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Headley, Richards (B), Pollock, etc. There is at least 1 all-time great with the bat a generation and you're likely to see 2 and these days will see even more than that.

One can argue that Tendulkar is better than some, if not all of them, but just how much is the difference? About the difference between McGrath and Wasim or Ambrose and Donald.

Now take Warne's time...there is him and then..........all the way back to Tiger and Grimmett. Heck, if you want to include off-spinners as well there is Murali too. That's it. He is so far ahead of every other spinner that there is no comparison. It's similar to wicket-keeper batsmen and Gilchrist...just how many in the history of cricket compare? Maybe a handful.

Exception is in the fact that he is still going with the same rate as if he is at his peak after 21 years. Where one of his contemporaries retired 5 years ago and another one is in slump for last 4 years. As of now there is a gap of 30 100s and that gap has widened in last 4 years.

You may have missed Spark's post a couple pages back. When Ponting was still near his peak and averaging almost 60...Tendulkar was still 20+ 100s ahead. Tendulkar is a great, fantastic longevity, but the difference between his 100 count and someone like Ponting's is down to opportunity.

If Ponting comes back from this slump and hits a purple patch again and closes in the gap then I am sure he will be more worthy of an equal. If he does not then I am sorry that debate was over in 2007.

If Ponting came back he'd still not get within 10 of that total because he won't play enough games.

 

[Sanz]

He hadn't debuted...how was anyone bar the Academy going to know about him? If Tendulkar hadn't debuted, who was going to know about him?

Because of this :-

Sharadashram Vidyamandir v St Xavier's High School, 23-25 Feb 1987

The whole cricketing world knew about the school boys of Shardashram.

 

[Ikki]

Rod Marsh never saw Tendulkar before he made his International debut. When Ponting was 16, Rod Marsh knew nothing about him. So no way Ponting was going to make his debut @ Sachin's age.

"I first came across Ricky Ponting in the summer of 1991-92 in Adelaide. He had come over on a scholarship from Launceston in Tasmania to spend a week at the Academy. He was 16 and I knew nothing about him"

The Ashes: Rod Marsh on the brilliance of Ricky Ponting | Sport | The Observer

Yes he had. In that same article it talks about Ponting, whilst still in the academy, wanting to stay behind and look at Sachin because the Indian team were training at the academy. In that article, Rod Marsh says Ponting is so good he should be averaging more than 60 and is disappointed.

Because of this :-

Sharadashram Vidyamandir v St Xavier's High School, 23-25 Feb 1987

The whole cricketing world knew about the school boys of Shardashram.

Whole cricketing world meaning India?

 

[Ikki]

all that does nothing to refute the bolded part, does it ? I didn't say it was a given, but if asked to chose and considering probability, you'd go with the bold part , wouldn't you ?

Yes, but it would mean Tendulkar would have less 100s for me. Are you missing the original point?

I was talking about praises for ponting 2-3 years after he made his debut . Wasn't that a bit obvious ?

But the reason Sachin was making noises was because of his age. Not because he was superlative amongst his peers. Again, from debut till 20 Sachin averaged in the 20s and 30s against every team bar England and Australia - in the 40s overall. The reason he was making noises was because of his age. Not that he was the best batsman of the world. By the time Ponting had debuted Lara and Tendulkar had already established themselves as a force. Warne was huge and the Australian team was #1 or getting there. When Tendulkar debuted it was the end of an era for many greats and only Waugh and Lara were making themselves undeniable. He was the stand-out in a weak side and...he was very young.

 

[Sanz]

If Ponting came back he'd still not get within 10 of that total because he won't play enough games.

Well if he gets within 10, that will be more than enough for most to consider him a much more worthy equal (statistically at least).