• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Tendulkar is selfish

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don’t know if Dhoni bats for his average. I truly don’t.

For a once great cricketing nation deprived of simple pleasures Lara’s 400 was something they could celebrate and that could inspire the next generation (it probably did, we don’t know) of West Indians: also it ensured that his team wouldn’t lose the test which was a big deal for that bunch.

Even if we know for sure that Dhoni bats for his average and a once in a century batting achievement is less important to a cricketing culture than a shot at winning a match with a weak bowling attack... I don’t know if Tendulkar hurt his team’s chances in pursuit of personal glory. His single minded occupation of scoring runs was comparable to Hadlee’s relentless search for bowling records. Both served their teams as generously as Richards and Warne served theirs. Don’t know why trying to maximise one’s own gifts is bad for the team...
You can try and justify the behaviour in the examples I gave all you want, that's fine, but it wasn't really the crux of my point. I was just pointing out that the real definition "selfishness" being examined in this context is not the one that you are bringing up, IMO.

Specifically the type of selfishness relevant to the discussion is that which directly disadvantages your team, which is mutually exclusive to the context which you are bringing it up in (ie. can help the team).
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It’s really interesting how this has become such a hot topic.

Yesterday at a friends 70th birthday party, at a restaurant with big tv screens showing the game ar WC, the discussion soon diverted to “Tendulkar is so bloody selfish. It was stunning to see that almost everyone who was speaking felt that this was so. This was an oldies (70 +/- 5 yrs) group. Ten years ago, I know most of them for decades, it was impossible to say anything even insignificantly negative about the master batsman. Nothing.

Now this- last night at ‘Mehmaan Nawazi’ and this at CW.

Very interesting. ��
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For a team that had some really great players, ie. Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Kumble, they really didn't win as often as they should have. I wonder if that's a big part of it.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Batsmen get you draws. Bowlers win you matches. Take McGrath out of that great Australian team and India manage to level a series against them in Australia and England sneak in a series win.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
A lot of the best innings played by batsmen in teams with strong bowling attacks end up in memorable wins and get rated higher because of it. A lot of Tendulkar's great innings would've led to historic wins if the bowling attack was more potent. Like his 146 against at Capetown. He somehow dragged the total to parity and put India in a position to push for a historic series win. If India had Mcgrath, they probably win and Tendulkar's knock is hailed as this legendary knock in which he held off Steyn at his peak to deliver India's first ever series win in SA. Instead, it ended up a draw because India didn't quite have the bowlers to close it out and had a really stupid captain at the helm.

The kallisball game wouldn't have been the kallisball game if India had an ATG fast bowler in the side.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I thought Tendulkar's reputation for selfishness more came from him playing way past the point where someone should have replaced him rather than any specific selfish batting.

India's shops definitely have won more odi cricket than they did in the late 90s/ early 00s. Tendulkar went 234/200 in ODIs, which given the Indian batting talent of his era is not what you'd expect.
 

_00_deathscar

International Regular
For a team that had some really great players, ie. Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Kumble, they really didn't win as often as they should have. I wonder if that's a big part of it.
That’s an easy one (assume we’re talking tests only). India, especially outside the continent, rarely had an attack that could take 20 wickets. They could have had 6 ATG batsmen in the lineup, it wouldn’t matter (they had at least 2-3, certainly in contention anyway) . If you don’t take 20 wickets, then you’re not winning tests. Hell even at home they couldn’t regularly take 20, unlike this Indian team which is absolutely relentless.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Deathscar. What a username. From Hong Kong as well. I have serious reservations about you, just so you know.
 

ma1978

International Debutant
I thought Tendulkar's reputation for selfishness more came from him playing way past the point where someone should have replaced him rather than any specific selfish batting.

India's shops definitely have won more odi cricket than they did in the late 90s/ early 00s. Tendulkar went 234/200 in ODIs, which given the Indian batting talent of his era is not what you'd expect.
Debashish Mohanty, Abey Kuruvilla, Harvinder Singh, Manoj Prabhakar, RP Singh, Munaf Patel, etc. etc.

Even the good ones were pretty bad. If India had an average pace bowling attack, they would have been goods at ODIs.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Debashish Mohanty, Abey Kuruvilla, Harvinder Singh, Manoj Prabhakar, RP Singh, Munaf Patel, etc. etc.

Even the good ones were pretty bad. If India had an average pace bowling attack, they would have been goods at ODIs.
Mixing eras there. Munaf wasn't a 90s player. Nor was RP Singh.
 

Top