Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[Bun]

Wait, Tendulkar was averaging 60+ for several years in Test cricket in his teens?

This is news to me.

who said any of that? he averaged more thna any 16-20 yr old did by the time he finished his 20s. That keeps him in great stead.

 

[vcs]

At the time Tendulkar debuted, averaging 40 was like averaging in the late 40s or even 50 these days... i.e quite uncommon.

 

[Sanz]

...

Just no. Tests are a massive step-up in quality in demands. It takes time to get suited to Test cricket, you cannot expect to debut at a young age and suddenly start bashing the likes of Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and McGrath around the park for years on end.

Well that's what makes Tendulkar special, because he did what was not expected. One could see in the first series against Pakistan against Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir.

 

[GotSpin]

Thanks, massive! And still going strong.

People are just jealous Cevno. When they know for clear their idols aren't going to break Sachin's records, resorting to all these ridiculous "ifs and buts".

Just to clarify, tendulkar averages 60+ in Australia (despite having played a full series before he finished puberty). Imagine had he been an Australian, with access to bowlers much lesser than calibre of Aussie bowlers, and playing half of his career over there, what he'd have averaged!! I know people might argue Tendulkar had to face both Warne and McGrath only in 99, but the average Aus attack he faced and scored against was better than most of the world attacks people like Hayden, Punter had to face.

Must have been tough for Tendulkar to face the might of Brad Williams.

 

[Ikki]

People are just jealous Cevno.

 

[Spark]

That is such a silly assumption and silly point to make. Sunny Gavaskar, Javed Miandad, Azhar all were scoring heavily and averaging in 50-60s from the first test they played.

Perhaps I over-generalized, but would you say that that is the exception or the norm?

 

[Cevno]

It doesn't take a toll on any of his records being discussed here. They are aggregates. Do you know what you are talking about?

If Tendulkar debuted later, let's say 20, then he has 4 less years to acclimatise to Tests. Yes, his average may have been higher but it would also mean he'd have 4 less of his peak years at a peak age.

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point.

It would have been 25 not 30 ,as you already showed.

Why does not debuting at 16 take more toll on the body and mind with the pressure and the travelling and what not? Because it does not suit your argument?
Playing the way he is at 38 is tougher starting 22 years ago than starting 16 years ago.

He debuted at 16 because he was special and no other batsman has done so for India since or before him. All the other similar selection have been more desperation moves.
And their faliure in history show that how tough is it to succeed at that age and have the confidence and ability to do so and carry on.

Besides your acclimatisation argument is **** because it does not really take 4 years to acclimatise and also he would have been playing domestic cricket plus India a tours etc.. with even less pressure and room to improve had he not been selected at 16 ,not sitting at home or facing the likes of Imran,ambrose,waqar,wasim before his game had fully developed.
Like the argument put forwards for Hussey.

And playing those four years as you showed did not help those aggregate records too much,when it suited your argument.

 

[vcs]

Must have been tough for Tendulkar to face the might of Brad Williams.

...in all of 2 Tests, where he didn't play well anyway.

 

[Bun]

At the time Tendulkar debuted, averaging 40 was like averaging in the late 40s or even 50 these days... i.e quite uncommon.

Exactly! And to say he played his first home test after about 22 away tests!

Averaged bloody 45 before even turning 20, in an age 45 was considered world class, and people are saying that is nothing

Heights of desperation!

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

Well that's what makes Tendulkar special, because he did what was not expected. One could see in the first series against Pakistan against Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir.

Right, but Bun was implying that he would have a Mike Hussey-esque start to his Test career... I mean, really?

Mike Hussey's initial golden period is a very curious matter btw and there are a lot of often missed contributing factors to it.

 

[Cevno]

He can't break those records too.

 

[vcs]

Parthiv Patel also debuted at 16 BTW. That went well.

 

[Sanz]

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (even taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point. One can fathom him having the most 100s because he is better than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between him and the 2nd, 3rd, etc, is too much to suggest it is on ability. The guy played much more than others. Get over it. I know you'd love to believe he is that much better than the others but he ain't. Sorry!

Difference between him and others is monumental (in terms of No. of 100s).

Tendulkar has 99 International 100s, His closest competitor has 69.

He has played more because he could.

 

[Bun]

Must have been tough for Tendulkar to face the might of Brad Williams.

So Ponting made his runs against McGrathesque bowlers?

So who was the Man of series in the 99 series again?

 

[Cevno]

Parthiv Patel also debuted at 16 BTW. That went well.

List of youngest debutants -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/209994.html

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

 

[Ikki]

Well that's what makes Tendulkar special, because he did what was not expected. One could see in the first series against Pakistan against Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir.

And what did he average against them? In the 30s, right?

It happens here and there, players have impressive starts but it is simply far from the norm to be one of the best players on debut, especially at the age of 20. It took Tendulkar a while to truly become what he became, in both formats, and "a glimpse of ability" is not what we are discussing here.

 

[Bun]

It doesn't take a toll on any of his records being discussed here. They are aggregates. Do you know what you are talking about?

If Tendulkar debuted later, let's say 20, then he has 4 less years to acclimatise to Tests. Yes, his average may have been higher but it would also mean he'd have 4 less of his peak years at a peak age and he'd have less 100s.

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (even taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point. One can fathom him having the most 100s because he is better than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between him and the 2nd, 3rd, etc, is too much to suggest it is on ability. The guy played much more than others. Get over it. I know you'd love to believe he is that much better than the others but he ain't. Sorry!

to last more than the others is also part of his ability.

Otherwise a Gantaneume would have to be considered better test player than bradman

 

[GotSpin]

...in all of 2 Tests, where he didn't play well anyway.

So Ponting made his runs against McGrathesque bowlers?

So who was the Man of series in the 99 series again?

I wasn't being entirely serious about the Brad Williams comment, but it's ridiculous to suggest or imply that Australia was the only team with a worthy bowling line up and it's batsmen just plundered poor nations

 

[Bun]

And what did he average against them? In the 30s, right?

It happens here and there, players have impressive starts but it is simply far from the norm to be one of the best players on debut, especially at the age of 20. It took Tendulkar a while to truly become what he became, in both formats, and "a glimpse of ability" is not what we are discussing here.

Nice trolling Ikki..

Chck up atleast his stats before resorting to such stuff. He averaged 45 after his first 25 tests, even before turning 20!

No, he didn't have to play bangaldesh or zimbabwe to do that either. and in the 80s and early 90s, 45 was an average which was not considered just great, but brilliant.

 

[vcs]

I wasn't being entirely serious about the Brad Williams comment, but it's ridiculous to suggest or imply that Australia was the only team with a worthy bowling line up and it's batsmen just plundered poor nations

Yeah, I agree with you.