Tendulkar vs Amarnath

[ret]

That should be the idea for any selection for any player, any time.

If you do not believe a player will make an impact in the game you are proposing to pick him for, you have made an error in picking him. If you pick a player and he does not perform over a short "trial" period, then you should leave him out (presuming there's someone else with a case to play instead). If you pick a player and he performs, you keep picking him for as long as he continues to perform.

16-year-olds don't often make any impact in international cricket and Tendulkar was no different. He was 17 before he made any impact - and even then this is for one of the most exceptional players ever.

Hardly any "normal" player will have any chance whatsoever of success in international cricket before the age of 20 or so. Many it'd be even older - 22 or 23.

But you should never, ever pick someone for a match now in the belief that he'll be good enough to play in a year, or 3 years', time. Any such selection is a poor one.

so the next question is, why would you pick an experienced player when he is struggling, hoping that he will be good in a year and sometimes when that player doesn't even have 3 years of cricket left in him?

 

[Richard]

The theory is that only 1 out of a 50 tries will work out when you are thrusting a 16 year old to international cricket...

Probably more like 0 out of 50 tries.

Maybe more like 1 out of several thousand tries for a 17-year-old. Honestly, apart from Tendulkar, is there any 17-year-old (and I'm not talking about supposed 17-year-olds from Pakistan or Bangladesh whose birthdates aren't certificated) who's had any success at international cricket? Are there many (if even any) 18-year-olds apart from Tendulkar?

What's worse, not irregularly when trying you'll cause a player who might have been good enough at 22 to end-up not being good enough at 22 either.

Teenagers in international cricket = bad idea. Your chances of any success are negligable; your chances of doing long-term damage to a player who might've turned-out good are fairly considerable.

Also, there's the simple point that a teenager in international cricket is pretty much by default an implulse pick, and impulse picks always have a fairly high chance of failing, whether it's an impulse pick of a 19-year-old or an impulse pick of a 29-year-old.

 

[ret]

Because it was his 9th game that Tendulkar became a Test-class batsman. I'd not have picked him even then, actually, but it turns-out wouldn't have done him any harm to have played from the England tour in 1990 onwards. Not playing when you're good enough can't hurt anyone; playing when you're not good enough always hurts any player, and his team as well.

Good. Maybe someone other than Armanath should've played then. India aren't often short of high-calibre batsmen. But I'd never have picked a 16-year-old, even if he had broken every schoolboy record going.

And how did he became a test class batsmen in his 9th test? I thought he was pretty good in the first series that he played, helping India to a draw in the 4th test

So whom would you have picked? let me guess "I don't know" .... only think you know is that you woudn't pick a youngster without much FC experience?

btw, weren't Wasim and Waqar picked without much FC cricket behind them?

 

[Richard]

so the next question is, why would you pick an experienced player when he is struggling, hoping that he will be good in a year and sometimes when that player doesn't even have 3 years of cricket left in him?

Sometimes, there might well be no reason at all - and if there isn't, you don't.

However, if you are going to drop an "old" player (say, Armanath in 1989/90), there is always someone better to replace him with than a 16-year-old.

 

[ret]

Sometimes, there might well be no reason at all - and if there isn't, you don't.

However, if you are going to drop an "old" player (say, Armanath in 1989/90), there is always someone better to replace him with than a 16-year-old.

so you would replace Amarnath with an younsgter [may be not Tendulkar] and not bank on Amarnath's experience and stats and continue playing him .... thats the answer, i was looking for

 

[Richard]

And how did he became a test class batsmen in his 9th test?

Probably just by learning (maybe even acquiring) the skills needed. A skilled selector could have noticed this without him having to play Tests, and picked him for his Test debut at just the right time.

I thought he was pretty good in the first series that he played, helping India to a draw in the 4th test

He might've been OK compared to most 16-year-olds, but he was clearly still out of depth. An average of 30 in 8 Tests is not very good.

So whom would you have picked? let me guess "I don't know" .... only think you know is that you woudn't pick a youngster without much FC experience?

Yep, spot-on. If I was around at the time I'd probably be able to offer you a name or two, but as I'm not, all I can tell you is what I wouldn't have done.

btw, weren't Wasim and Waqar picked without much FC cricket behind them?

Possibly yes (I don't know for certain), but neither of them were ridiculously young (both were probably in their early-20s). I never said a guess cannot possibly work. But a guess is exactly what anyone picked without much First-Class cricket behind them is. And guesses fail more often than they succeed, and thus guessing is infinitely inpreferable compared to not guessing.

 

[Richard]

so you would replace Amarnath with an younsgter [may be not Tendulkar] and not bank on Amarnath's experience and stats and continue playing him .... thats the answer, i was looking for

I don't know. It'd depend on how I thought Armanath was playing.

As I said in my opening post, someone my age (which is the vast majority on this board) can expect to have an extremely limited knowledge at best of how Armanath was playing in 1989/90. There's no way I can say for certain whether I'd have dropped him. All I can say is that if I had, I'd not have picked Tendulkar.

That is, obviously, picked Tendulkar yet. I might well have done so not that long afterwards.

 

[ret]

Possibly yes (I don't know for certain), but neither of them were ridiculously young (both were probably in their early-20s). I never said a guess cannot possibly work. But a guess is exactly what anyone picked without much First-Class cricket behind them is. And guesses fail more often than they succeed, and thus guessing is infinitely inpreferable compared to not guessing.

from that can we logically deduce that if someone is 25 and has little FC experience then he can still be picked? so whats wrong with a teenager with little FC experience

 

[Sanz]

First, picking Tendulkar at 16 was stupid. Second, how about I name 50 players who didn't work out?

I am sorry but your suggestion that just because Tendulkar was 16, he should not have been picked is just ridiculous. Tendulkar was drafted into the team after very careful consideration. He was so talented that the selectors were left with no choice but to select him for Pakistan.

Also the suggestion that Tendulkar is the one who replaced Amarnath is another of those ignorant Ideas. Amarnath was almost 40 when Tendulkar was picked and had not played cricket for 2 years in a row, so its not even close.

And even If Amarnath was available @ 39-40, Tendulkar should have been picked ahead of him based on what he(Tendulkar) was doing in Domestic Cricket.

 

[Sanz]

I am assuming people who haven't proven themselves in FC will do worse than those who have, as a general rule.

Are you suggesting that Tendulkar was unproven in FC before he was selected to Play for India ?

 

[Sanz]

The theory is that only 1 out of a 50 tries will work out when you are thrusting a 16 year old to international cricket...

Tendulkar was not just 'a' 16 year old my dear. His success was never in doubt.

 

[Indipper]

Tendulkar was not just 'a' 16 year old my dear. His success was never in doubt.

Some people find the transition from school cricket to Tests hard to make.

 

[Richard]

from that can we logically deduce that if someone is 25 and has little FC experience then he can still be picked? so whats wrong with a teenager with little FC experience

Picking a 25-year-old with minimal First-Class experience = very stupid.

Picking a 16-year-old with minimal First-Class experience = very very stupid.

The difference is not much, and both should be avoided under all cirucmstances if you're aiming for a successful team.

That's not to say the likes of Waqar and Wasim would never have played - once they'd played a decent amount of domestic cricket it's extremely likely they'd have done exceptionally well and had an irrefutable case to be picked.

Trouble is that Pakistani cricket is a turbulent thing and talent often wasted whether picked for international duty prematurely or not.

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar was not just 'a' 16 year old my dear. His success was never in doubt.

Well, yeah, it was, because he struggled for his first 8 Tests in his first season.

It might have been extremely likely (though obviously nothing is ever beyond all doubt) that he was going to succeed at some point, but 16 is still far too young to be being picked for the first time and even one of the best batsmen in history like Tendulkar was not up to it at that age.

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar was not just 'a' 16 year old my dear. His success was never in doubt.

Neither was Kambli's right? Or Hirwani? Sorry, but school cricket is not Test cricket. Indian cricket history is riddled with failed wonder-boys who had promise but got ruined because the selectors worship at the cult of youth. The sooner Indian cricket realize that, the better.

 

[Anil]

Neither was Kambli's right? Or Hirwani? Sorry, but school cricket is not Test cricket. Indian cricket history is riddled with failed wonder-boys who had promise but got ruined because the selectors worship at the cult of youth. The sooner Indian cricket realize that, the better.

tendulkar didn't become a test player straight from school cricket, he played ranji, duleep and irani trophy matches and scored centuries on debut in each...he was identified as a rare talent and even though he didn't exactly set the international stage alight in his 1st year or so, he displayed flashes of brilliance along with a mental toughness and temperament that showed he belonged...that said i agree with your general point...

 

[fredfertang]

Picking a 25-year-old with minimal First-Class experience = very stupid.

Picking a 16-year-old with minimal First-Class experience = very very stupid.

The difference is not much, and both should be avoided under all cirucmstances if you're aiming for a successful team.

That's not to say the likes of Waqar and Wasim would never have played - once they'd played a decent amount of domestic cricket it's extremely likely they'd have done exceptionally well and had an irrefutable case to be picked.

Trouble is that Pakistani cricket is a turbulent thing and talent often wasted whether picked for international duty prematurely or not.

Alf Valentine in 1950 was 20 and had played two first class matches

Sonny Ramadhin in 1950 was 21 and had also played two first class matches

Both were picked to tour that nasty cold country in the Northern Hemisphere

How stupid was that?

 

[Richard]

Pretty stupid, probably (though things were less straightforward in those days - at least, in West Indies they were).

No-one said a stupid selection has a zero chance of paying-off. I'm sure Ramadhin and Valentine had their advocates, people who saw their talent and knew they had a good chance of being good bowlers. Obviously, though, no-one really knew how good they were going to turn-out until they arrived over here.

In any case, I don't know how many people there were who were begging for selection around the time in question. The answer could perfectly possibly be "not many" or even "none". If you've a choice between a few people who've played 30 or 40-odd FC games with averages of 42, 39 and 45 and two lads who've barely played any FC cricket, it's a bit of a rock-and-hard-place situation. Either way you go, you've a decent chance of being royally buggered.

 

[Sanz]

Neither was Kambli's right? Or Hirwani? Sorry, but school cricket is not Test cricket. Indian cricket history is riddled with failed wonder-boys who had promise but got ruined because the selectors worship at the cult of youth. The sooner Indian cricket realize that, the better.

Excuse me ?? You really have very little idea about Indian cricket (in early 90s and late 80s) if you thought Vinod Kambli and Narendra Hirwani were as talented as Sachin Tendulkar.

Besides, Kambli didn't make his debut @ the age of 16, Nor did Hirwani. Actually Vinod Kambli's example negates your logic about age unless you argue that the right age to debut is 25 or so because Kambli was about 21 or so when he made his test debut.

I dont worship youth, but Tendulkar was no ordinary cricketer even as a schoolboy. I dont know from where you get the impression that Tendulkar came to play Test Cricket directly from School, it is totally incorrect.

 

[Sanz]

Some people find the transition from school cricket to Tests hard to make.

What is the point, some people find the transition to Test cricket very hard (Clue - Hick).