Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[vcs]

You're kidding yourself if you think Tendulkar would have been picked for Australia any earlier than Ponting was. Ponting himself was picked at 20 which is a very early age in our setup - and he was tipped as a prodigy as well.

Still, from debut till about the age Ponting came Tendulkar had a pretty ordinary record against everyone bar Australia and England. Averaged 30s or lower against every other team IIRC. Yes, that is good for a player that young, but it isn't superlative in the bigger picture.

I disagree. He did not have a poor tour out of the ones I've listed, couldn't care less if his exact average was 35 or 38 or whatever. Made hundreds everywhere in tough conditions against good attacks at an early age.

 

[Spark]

There is no way that Tendulkar would have debuted at 16. It's just not the Australian thing to do. Even the Ponting/Clarke cases of someone being rushed through the academy/FC system before their FC performances fully justified their inclusion on their own is extremely unusual.

 

[Sanz]

On the other hand he has played more, and had more opportunities. It is not like Ponting or those chasing the 99 100s are scoring centuries at a snail's pace. It's a nice point to have, but too much can be made of it.

That is an incorrect assumption.

In Tests :- Ponting since Jan 2008 has 6 100s in 39 test matches (71 Innings) , Tendulkar has 14 in 34 Test matches (59 Innings).

In ODIs:- Ponting since Jan 2008 has 5 100s in 71 matches, Tendulkar has 7 in 46.


Looking at above, it does seem that the other batsmen are scoring centuries at snails pace at this stage of their careers and that is the point being made by many that Tendulkar is still going consistently after 21 years and that is very rare. It may not be as unique as Sir Don's record but definitely not something we have seen in International Cricket before and not likely to see anytime soon in the future.

 

[Bun]

You're kidding yourself if you think Tendulkar would have been picked for Australia any earlier than Ponting was. Ponting himself was picked at 20 which is a very early age in our setup - and he was tipped as a prodigy as well.

Still, from debut till about the age Ponting came Tendulkar had a pretty ordinary record against everyone bar Australia and England. Averaged 30s or lower against every other team IIRC. Yes, that is good for a player that young, but it isn't superlative in the bigger picture.

Still has about 3+ points adv in avg in tests and ODIS, imagine what it could be if 1 ignore the early years!

 

[Jono]

As far as I can see in this thread Don Bradman has only been mentioned by the people trying to remind us again that Bradman is better.

Well yes he is. No one in here is saying he isn't. But what we're seeing from Sachin is incredibly rare. Very very rare. That should be appreciated.

 

[Bun]

There is no way that Tendulkar would have debuted at 16. It's just not the Australian thing to do. Even the Ponting/Clarke cases of someone being rushed through the academy/FC system before their FC performances fully justified their inclusion on their own is extremely unusual.

Not many survive after debuting at 16! He did.

 

[Ikki]

30 international 100s, 11 in tests alone, isn't that big enough??

Re: openers, how many of them avg over 50?

Not really. Sachin has played what, 25 more Tests and 8 of his 100s come against B/Z. Opportunity - to play more, and against weaker teams in this instance.

That is an incorrect assumption.

You've essentially highlighted one's peak and the other's trough and said one scores more 100s per tests than the other. Genius stuff there from Sanz.

I disagree. He did not have a poor tour out of the ones I've listed, couldn't care less if his exact average was 35 or 38 or whatever. Made hundreds everywhere in tough conditions against good attacks at an early age.

If you are talking about the period I am talking about, from debut-to-20. That is simply not true.

 

[Sanz]

You're kidding yourself if you think Tendulkar would have been picked for Australia any earlier than Ponting was. Ponting himself was picked at 20 which is a very early age in our setup - and he was tipped as a prodigy as well.

Still, from debut till about the age Ponting came Tendulkar had a pretty ordinary record against everyone bar Australia and England. Averaged 30s or lower against every other team IIRC. Yes, that is good for a player that young, but it isn't superlative in the bigger picture.

I am not sure if that argument really goes against Tendy. I think you just made a point in favor of Tendulkar

 

[Spark]

Not many survive after debuting at 16! He did.

Not many debut at 16 full stop. Who knows, maybe Ponting would have been brilliant at 16? We will, of course, never know, because that's not the way it works here.

 

[Ikki]

I am not sure if that argument really goes against Tendy. I think you just made a point in favor of Tendulkar

Considering your way of analysing stats I am not surprised.

 

[Bun]

Not really. Sachin has played what, 25 more Tests and 8 of his 100s come against B/Z. Opportunity - to play more, and against weaker teams in this instance.



You've essentially highlighted one's peak and the other's trough and said one scores more 100s per tests than the other. Genius stuff there from Sanz.



If you are talking about the period I am talking about, from debut-to-20. That is simply not true.

He played 25 more bcoz he was gud enuf to do so. What a pathetic argument.

How many tests on avg ind and aus play a year?

 

[vcs]

Ikki, you and I have very different definitions of very ordinary/poor, my friend. I don't think there's any point discussing this any more.

Ponting was averaging exactly 40 after 45 Tests with 7 centuries, thankfully the Australian selectors did not take your view and discard him at that point.

 

[Jono]

Relax fellasssssssssssssss

 

[Bun]

Not many debut at 16 full stop. Who knows, maybe Ponting would have been brilliant at 16? We will, of course, never know, because that's not the way it works here.

Or had Tendy debuted at 20odd he'd possibly been averagin in the 60s as well, assmptions work both ways.

Seeing Ponting's career graph, chap had a Bradmanly peak from 2002-2006, and has been mediocre both sides of it. There is absolutely nothing which suggests he'd been amazing had he debuted at 16. took his enough sweet time to come good inspite of debuting at 21.

 

[Ikki]

He played 25 more bcoz he was gud enuf to do so. What a pathetic argument.

How many tests on avg ind and aus play a year?

Huh? I just made the point that had Tendulkar played in Australia, like Ponting, he wouldn't have debuted at 16 and wouldn't have the same number of 100s. If Aus play more matches during Ponting's career it is somewhat irrelevant as Tendulkar's career started some 5-6 years earlier - it isn't enough to make up that difference. You can't score 100s if you don't play/haven't debuted.

Ikki, you and I have very different definitions of very ordinary/poor, my friend. I don't think there's any point discussing this any more.

Well, I said it was a good record for a youngin' but not superlative in the bigger picture. I am not sure how that is really arguable - unless you start counting averaging in the 20s-30s as superlative.

Or had Tendy debuted at 20odd he'd possibly been averagin in the 60s as well, assmptions work both ways.

Seeing Ponting's career graph, chap had a Bradmanly peak from 2002-2006, and has been mediocre both sides of it. There is absolutely nothing which suggests he'd been amazing had he debuted at 16. took his enough sweet time to come good inspite of debuting at 21.

But it's not an assumption like the above. Tendulkar played more Tests and ODIs...therefore he is going to score more 100s than someone not playing at all. If he wasn't scoring those 100s he wouldn't be in this discussion to begin with.

 

[Bun]

Ikki's argument is like saying a marathon runner is nowhere good as a 100m dasher because the marathon guy gets more miles to do his running Never mind the fact that the marathon guy, if asked to do a 100m will and have outdone the other chap.

 

[Cevno]

If you are talking about the period I am talking about, from debut-to-20. That is simply not true.

Doesn't that negate your own argument that Sachin has these records because he started early?

When in fact even removing those years as you did their he has 46 test and 48 ODI centuries after he turned 20.

So that is 94 centuries . Again far ahead of Ponting who also started at 20 which was your main argument.

 

[Spark]

Or had Tendy debuted at 20odd he'd possibly been averagin in the 60s as well, assmptions work both ways.

Seeing Ponting's career graph, chap had a Bradmanly peak from 2002-2006, and has been mediocre both sides of it. There is absolutely nothing which suggests he'd been amazing had he debuted at 16. took his enough sweet time to come good inspite of debuting at 21.

I find it very difficult to believe he would have straight away averaged 60 for a long period immediately had he debuted at 20. It always takes time to get settled into Test cricket. That I believe is Ikki's argument, the extra four years that Tendulkar had allowed him to get settled into Test cricket at a far younger age than Ponting did. Because he debuted at a younger age.

 

[Bun]

Huh? I just made the point that had Tendulkar played in Australia, like Ponting, he wouldn't have debuted at 16 and wouldn't have the same number of 100s. If Aus play more matches during Ponting's career it is somewhat irrelevant as Tendulkar's career started some 5-6 years earlier - it isn't enough to make up that difference. You can't score 100s if you don't play/haven't debuted.

On the contrary, had Ponting been an Indian, by all means (looking at his Ind avg) wouldn't have debuted at all.

See you can make all sorts of ifs and buts, had Bradman been born in Yugoslavia instead of Aus, Sachin would've been undoubtedly the Bradman of this sport, Or had Sachin decided to skip his cricketing lessons and instead opted for academics, Ponting would've undoubtedly been the greatest bat ever etc blah blah blah....

 

[Bun]

I find it very difficult to believe he would have straight away averaged 60 for a long period immediately had he debuted at 20. It always takes time to get settled into Test cricket.

Not really, Hussey for instance took to Int cricket like duck to water while debuting. He was in that good nick and peak of his career. Sachin hit his first peak around 1995-96 when he was about 22.