Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[GotSpin]

sorry, I didn't notice the "re"asserted.
People almost had him down as teh 2nd best bat ever before he lost his touch.

edit- IMO there was a big enough gap between Lara and Tendulakr.
Half of Lara's 100s (16) came in his last 4 years (03-06), which coincided with Tendulkar's decline.

While not wishing to get into a Tendulkar v. argument, my point still remains that Tendulkar was not head and shoulders above his competition. He was always closely followed or at some points overtaken.

 

[smash84]

Not a good post.




3. SO who exactly had a Great record against Mcgrath? He rarely played the W's so no point bringing them up.

THis annoys me- How would a truly great bowler (Mcgrath) be a All time Great, if a great batsmen (Tendulkar or lara) had an outstanding record against him.

I think you missed the point when I made it. Another poster had mentioned that he had such a fantastic record while playing against the likes of Donal/McGrath/2Ws/Pollock etc. So I answered that it is not as if he dominated these guys. That was the point of my post. I hope you get what I am trying to say

 

[Ikki]

Saying it again and again does not make it true.

He is clearly above everyone else in terms of the combination of his records.

But most of his records are under the umbrella of longevity. Not that he is much better than any player. It is still arguable whether he is even the best batsman of his era because he really isn't that far ahead of the pack where it counts.

By your criteria, Ponting is ahead of Lara the way Tendulkar is ahead of Ponting. Which, frankly, doesn't hold true with respect to how good they were comparatively. The combinations of records argument or the combination of International centuries (99) when compared to Bradman; are two straws being clutched to say Tendulkar was better than he was.

 

[vcs]

so??? your table only proves that Tendulkar has the highest number of centuries in losing causes. Even as percentage Ricky Ponting, Anwar, Inzy, probably have a higher percentage. I don't quite get what you are trying to hint at????

Which one is better, a batsman who scores 33 out of his 47 centuries in winning causes, or one who scores 7/10 in winning causes? It's a pretty meaningless statistic.

Also think the value of longevity is being a tad underrated in this thread, though it's obviously not the be all and end all of greatness.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, people are basically brushing it off. As if being at the top of the game from basically 1995-2011 with a couple of poor years in between is not worth bringing into the argument of greatness.

Of course it's a factor. It's one of the best things for a country. You'd rather have a champion for 20 years than 15.

 

[GotSpin]

Which one is better, a batsman who scores 33 out of his 47 centuries in winning causes, or one who scores 7/10 in winning causes? It's a pretty meaningless statistic.

Also think the value of longevity is being a tad underrated in this thread, though it's obviously not the be all and end all of greatness.

It's perhaps because the value of longevity is so overrated away from here.

 

[Jono]

No it's not. And that statement is proof that you're trying to overcompensate for external arguments (fans, commentators etc) about Sachin's qualities, which is stupid. Don't bring that **** on CW.

 

[Ikki]

It's not that big when you start comparing players with 16-17 year careers with 20 year careers. It was only a couple years ago that Tendulkar fans were saying that his decline towards the end shouldn't affect his legacy yet now they are only so willing to use his rejuvenation.

I think it's also somewhat unfair that the likes of Ponting will probably go on to play towards a similar age to Tendulkar but because he wasn't picked as a teen will play less. If Tendulkar was Australian there'd be no way he'd be playing as a 16-17 year old.

 

[Jono]

At the same time Sachin's average is hurt from playing at 16.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Cevno]

But most of his records are under the umbrella of longevity. Not that he is much better than any player. It is still arguable whether he is even the best batsman of his era because he really isn't that far ahead of the pack where it counts.

By your criteria, Ponting is ahead of Lara the way Tendulkar is ahead of Ponting. Which, frankly, doesn't hold true with respect to how good they were comparatively. The combinations of records argument or the combination of International centuries (99) when compared to Bradman; are two straws being clutched to say Tendulkar was better than he was.

He was clearly ahead of the competition in the 1990's . Had a clear advantage in average too in both tests and ODI'S and certainly as a combination.

And then after that he has had almost a second great career till date.

Most of the batsman would be delighted to have one of the 2 careers he has had combined into one.
I think you are giving too much importance to a period in 2000's where people had a better time than him and where even decent but not great batsman boosted their averages and scored runs.
In a 20 year career to be on the top for atleast 10 years and being amongst the top almost 15 years is really standing apart and don't think in this day and age with so many teams and variations and so many different talented batsman ,anybody else has really achieved it or come close to it.

 

[Jono]

By the way, longevity is an argument for Ponting as well Ikki. Steve Waugh too.

 

[Ikki]

At the same time Sachin's average is hurt from playing at 16.

Swings and roundabouts.

But you're not talking about average. You are talking about longevity and the aggregate stats related to that. So, no, they are not hurt in that sense.

If people were talking about 100s per innings or average or things like that; then you'd see just how close to the other great batsmen of his era are (basically nothing in it). It's this talk of longevity that people use to say he is way in front which, to me, is clutching at straws in a sense. It's not like Lara, Ponting, Kallis and others had/have short careers.

For me, the ability he had to reinvent himself, and to come back from problems is what stands out in his last few years. Although, that is more a contextual point than something I look to bolster his stats.

 

[Jono]

When did Kallis become one of the leading batsmen though?

 

[GotSpin]

He was clearly ahead of the competition in the 1990's . Had a clear advantage in average too in both tests and ODI'S and certainly as a combination.

And then after that he has had almost a second great career till date.

Most of the batsman would be delighted to have one of the 2 careers he has had combined into one.
I think you are giving too much importance to a period in 2000's where people had a better time than him and where even decent but not great batsman boosted their averages and scored runs.
In a 20 year career to be on the top for atleast 10 years and being amongst the top almost 15 years is really standing apart and don't think in this day and age with so many teams and variations and so many different talented batsman ,anybody else has really achieved it or come close to it.

I don't understand how that argument can even be used. It doesn't explain why some batsmen did really well and Tendulkar declined.

 

[Cevno]

Another thing that sets him apar from the competition is his combined test and ODI records. He has been at the top in both for so long ,not just one form of the game. Compatibility.

 

[Jono]

Haha, I can see this going in circles so I will exit now.

I agree with Got Spin though. The Cevno argument excusing Sachin from not doing too well in the mid 2000s for a few years is a **** one. He had a bad patch, whilst others did well. It should be acknowledged, rather than putting down other batsmen's (Ponting, Dravid, Kallis) achievements

 

[Ikki]

When did Kallis become one of the leading batsmen though?

He's always been amongst the best or thereabouts. Should I have put Waugh? My point was I wouldn't use longevity to say he is better than these guys. Sachin has better points IMO, but it still makes the difference only slight and that's what it will always be. So when people start getting caught in the hype and start comparing Tendulkar to Bradman; they should know they're inadvertantly making the case for guys like Ponting and Lara too. If they are saying Tendulkar is one of the greats of the modern era; the same again goes for the other guys too.

 

[Cevno]

I don't understand how that argument can even be used. It doesn't explain why some batsmen did really well and Tendulkar declined.

He didn't really decline ,tbh.

He was not there clear on the top like in the 90's ,but he was still good over a decent period of time.

Mostly it was due to injuries and a loss of form which is to be expected in a 20 year career and is again a thing that is affected by starting so early at such a high level.

 

[Cevno]

Haha, I can see this going in circles so I will exit now.

I agree with Got Spin though. The Cevno argument excusing Sachin from not doing too well in the mid 2000s for a few years is a **** one. He had a bad patch, whilst others did well. It should be acknowledged, rather than putting down other batsmen's (Ponting, Dravid, Kallis) achievements

I never excused that period.

My argument was that in a 20 year career to say that others were ahead in 3 and so he was not ahead in the whole career is a **** one ,when as a combination he is clearly ahead.

 

[Jono]

Yes, he's been at the top or thereabouts for longer than any batsman in the last 20 years. And he has years to add to that. I agree with that.