What if Tendulkar was an Aussie ?

[C_C]

Oh my god, this argument again...

Tendulkar wouldn't have got a test cap before 20, in Australia, full stop. I remember last time this argument went into Tendulkar being on the same plane as Mozart.

Err because he is in the same plane as Mozart. Your condescending western sensibilities might not like it but deal with the idea that your greatest poets/literary figures/scientists/etc. arnt exactly unique or ahead of the greatest from other cultures.
Mozart's claim to fame, apart from being a very good composer, was that he was a prodigy.
Same with Tendulkar- he is a prodigy like none other in atleast the last 50 years of cricket.
He'd have earned his test cap EASILY for Australia by the time he was 18. Full stop.

 

[C_C]

General standards of living issues come into this also. Would a parent in Australia allow their kid to leave home and school at age 15 or 16 to chase a cricket dream? No. Would they let their kid attend junior camps and clinics nuturing his tallent for free while he also finished a basic education? Yes.

If Tendulkar was only a kid then his parents would have wanted him to have at least finished grade 10 before he went off chasing a dream of playing for Australia.

Tendulkar would not have played cricket for his state in Australia before he had finished grade 10. Full stop.

Dude this is bull****. Tendulkar's parents allowed him to play cricket obviously and it wouldnt change if his parents immigrated to OZ.
And for your information, Tendulkar DID finish his matriculation. He obviously did all that while still being a test cricketer-though he deferred his matriculation by a few years.
Can't see why he'd not do the same or do homeschooling in OZ.
Bottomline is that based on cricketing talent and accomplishment, there is absolutely no case to bar Tendulkar from debuting for ANY nation in ANY era by his 18th birthday.
That is all that is relevant, really.
This is to do with cricket, not societerial structure- for societerial structure always has exceptional cases.
Argue this purely from a cricketing standpoing - was tendulkar good enough to play cricket at the highest level before 20 ? Yes- easily so.
Was he good enough to play FC cricket by the time he was 15-16 in OZ ? yes, easily so.
Would he have pushed out his nearest competitor to a spot in the OZ team by the time he was 18 ? Yes easily so.
And that alone should be the parameters for this discussion..

 

[Dasa]

General standards of living issues come into this also. Would a parent in Australia allow their kid to leave home and school at age 15 or 16 to chase a cricket dream? No. Would they let their kid attend junior camps and clinics nuturing his tallent for free while he also finished a basic education? Yes.

Oh yes, the poor Indians don't know how to rear their children properly.

 

[Matt79]

Except that its ignoring the reality that regardless of how talented he was, he almost certainly wouldn't have been given the opportunity to be a regular first class cricketer under the age of 18 in Australia in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Its a structural societal thing.

And assuming he had got a regular FC slot and dominated, even then, which out of the Australian middle order line up circa 1991 do you think he would have forced out, given they were all pretty well established players at that stage: , David Boon, Allan Border, Dean Jones, Steve or Mark Waugh. Steve was the only one struggling around that time and by then Mark had been a top drawer FC cricketer for several years. All those players averaged in the high forties, at least, and apart from Mark Waugh had played in one or both of the World Cup win or the 1989 Ashes win. They wouldn't have dropped any of them for a teenager prodigy, regardless of how well he was doing in FC.

 

[Matt79]

Oh yes, the poor Indians don't know how to rear their children properly.

Bit of a dumb comment really. He wasn't implying that Indian parents don't know how to raise their children, he's just saying that the norm here is much more towards kids having to complete their schooling - its compulsory until at least 16 in most states. But its not a cast-iron rule. Lleyton Hewitt quit school at 16 IIRC to pursue his tennis career.

 

[Dasa]

Bit of a dumb comment really. He wasn't implying that Indian parents don't know how to raise their children, he's just saying that the norm here is much more towards kids having to complete their schooling - its compulsory until at least 16 in most states. But its not a cast-iron rule. Lleyton Hewitt quit school at 16 IIRC to pursue his tennis career.

Why is it a dumb comment? His point is ignorant and offensive.
What's the point of bringing up "general standards of living issues"? That's absolutely irrelevant and I fail to see what point he could possibly be making that would make that statement relevant in any way.
Also, the point that schooling is compulsory is also irrelevant considering that home-schooling is allowed in Australia, so playing cricket at FC level or otherwise doesn't mean a person has to give up his/her education.

 

[Matt79]

Because I think your response made it sound like he had insulted Indian people when, in my reading of his post, that's obviously not at all what he was trying to say.

If you think what he said was factually incorrect, point that out by all means. If you think he's not being clear, ask him what he means. Leaping to a conclusion that he's sledging another culture is just an unproductive approach IMO. Unless there's some history to this that I'm not aware of...

 

[Dasa]

Because I think your response made it sound like he had insulted Indian people when, in my reading of his post, that's obviously not at all what he was trying to say.

If you think what he said was factually incorrect, point that out by all means. If you think he's not being clear, ask him what he means. Leaping to a conclusion that he's sledging another culture is just an unproductive approach IMO. Unless there's some history to this that I'm not aware of...

I may have gone overboard in the first response, so I apologise for that.
However, his posts in this thread point (IMO) to a tendency to generalise negatively - I mean, look at a comment like this "Ricky Ponting was only able to make his debute at age 17 because he had left school after grade 10 which is the minimum requirment in australia. You may be able to leave school in India at age 14 to play cricket but I doubt the Australian education system would be that bad."

 

[C_C]

Bit of a dumb comment really. He wasn't implying that Indian parents don't know how to raise their children, he's just saying that the norm here is much more towards kids having to complete their schooling - its compulsory until at least 16 in most states. But its not a cast-iron rule. Lleyton Hewitt quit school at 16 IIRC to pursue his tennis career.

Umm.
Sorry to break this to people who dont already know it - Indian and Asian parents are by far the most demanding parents education-wise. Which is why Tendulkar still finished school.
And Matt, you know as well as i do that in several sports-such as gymnastics etc, under 16 kids take time out from school or do both school and gymnastics together.
I am sure kids extending their school years by a couple to excel in sports is not an unknown phenomenon in Australia.

PS: As far as indian education system goes, if its CBSE or ICSE boards ( India has several boards), they can run rings around A level students and especially Aussie and American students. Sorry but ICSE grade 9 is more work than 1st year university and i speak from experience here.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how when asked to provide this evidence, none is forthcoming, not even a link to it...

 

[Ikki]

Err because he is in the same plane as Mozart. Your condescending western sensibilities might not like it but deal with the idea that your greatest poets/literary figures/scientists/etc. arnt exactly unique or ahead of the greatest from other cultures.
Mozart's claim to fame, apart from being a very good composer, was that he was a prodigy.
Same with Tendulkar- he is a prodigy like none other in atleast the last 50 years of cricket.
He'd have earned his test cap EASILY for Australia by the time he was 18. Full stop.

Dude, you're delusional, but it isn't like I'm discovering anything here - it's something everybody here knows.

BTW do you know where I even come from? 'Western sensibilities'? Would you care to elaborate? Or would you mind thinking - for once - before hitting away at the keyboard.

 

[Ikki]

Except that its ignoring the reality that regardless of how talented he was, he almost certainly wouldn't have been given the opportunity to be a regular first class cricketer under the age of 18 in Australia in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Its a structural societal thing.

And assuming he had got a regular FC slot and dominated, even then, which out of the Australian middle order line up circa 1991 do you think he would have forced out, given they were all pretty well established players at that stage: , David Boon, Allan Border, Dean Jones, Steve or Mark Waugh. Steve was the only one struggling around that time and by then Mark had been a top drawer FC cricketer for several years. All those players averaged in the high forties, at least, and apart from Mark Waugh had played in one or both of the World Cup win or the 1989 Ashes win. They wouldn't have dropped any of them for a teenager prodigy, regardless of how well he was doing in FC.

Exactly, whether he was good enough can be anyone's wet dream, Australian sports culture dictates he would have had to wait. C_C, speaking out of his rear-end, is making false generalisations - one thing/situation applying everywhere.

 

[C_C]

Dude, you're delusional, but it isn't like I'm discovering anything here - it's something everybody here knows.

I am sorry but i have not said anything fanciful. It is a fact that cricket has not had a player as prodigal as Tendulkar in the last 50 years!

BTW do you know where I even come from? 'Western sensibilities'? Would you care to elaborate? Or would you mind thinking - for once - before hitting away at the keyboard.

I stand by my comment. And it matters not an iota where you come from. Most 'whitewashed' wannabes (or whatever-washed depending on where they live and totally integrate) fall back on this 'look at where i come from' line that holds no merit in reality and i think most people with half a brain know why and how this phenomenon works.

Exactly, whether he was good enough can be anyone's wet dream

No it is a fact - like i said, a 20 year old guy averaging 50+ in tests when only three others- all 30+ and 100 test veterans like Miandad, Border and Viv averaging 50+ at that time is sufficient proof that he was good enough to play test cricket before the age of 20 in any era for any team.

Australian sports culture dictates he would have had to wait.

Sorry but Aussies made an 'exception' for Steve Waugh and he wasnt that prodigal. They made an 'exception' for Ponting and he was less of a prodigy.
This is the late 80s we are talking about, when the OZ were a decent team on the rise without much depth. Tendulkar would've walked into the OZ team in his teenage years back then simply on merit - sporting culture or not.

C_C, speaking out of his rear-end, is making false generalisations - one thing/situation applying everywhere.

If you read a bit carefully, it'll dawn on you that i am destroying this generalisation that 'aussies dont give chance regardless of how prodigal you are' and saying that an exceptional prodigal talent like Tendulkar- unmatched in the last 50 years or so of test cricket at the very least- would've not been subject to these often disregarded rules about age and experience.

 

[C_C]

Funny how when asked to provide this evidence, none is forthcoming, not even a link to it...

I already told someone here where to look. As i keep saying to you and the others before - i am NOT going to do your homework for you. Tendulkar's prodigal accomplishments are already common knowledge in many circles. Research on it if you wish but dont use your ignorance as a justifiable front for challenging facts.
Go check at what age Tendulkar was playing and utterly annihilating U-15 and U-16 teams where all the players were 15 or 16 years old.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but i have not said anything fanciful. It is a fact that cricket has not had a player as prodigal as Tendulkar in the last 50 years!




I stand by my comment. And it matters not an iota where you come from. Most 'whitewashed' wannabes (or whatever-washed depending on where they live and totally integrate) fall back on this 'look at where i come from' line that holds no merit in reality and i think most people with half a brain know why and how this phenomenon works.



No it is a fact - like i said, a 20 year old guy averaging 50+ in tests when only three others- all 30+ and 100 test veterans like Miandad, Border and Viv averaging 50+ at that time is sufficient proof that he was good enough to play test cricket before the age of 20 in any era for any team.



Sorry but Aussies made an 'exception' for Steve Waugh and he wasnt that prodigal. They made an 'exception' for Ponting and he was less of a prodigy.
This is the late 80s we are talking about, when the OZ were a decent team on the rise without much depth. Tendulkar would've walked into the OZ team in his teenage years back then simply on merit - sporting culture or not.



If you read a bit carefully, it'll dawn on you that i am destroying this generalisation that 'aussies dont give chance regardless of how prodigal you are' and saying that an exceptional prodigal talent like Tendulkar- unmatched in the last 50 years or so of test cricket at the very least- would've not been subject to these often disregarded rules about age and experience.

No dude, it doesn't dawn on you that you ARE making the generalisation.

I'm from here and I'm 'white-washed'? What do you call that? Stop talking non-sense, you're a penny short, we know that, but try to keep to yourself son.

You know f-all about Australia and there have been many times where what you've said bordered on -if not itself - racist. Now you're making another generalisation about a cricketing culture you have NO clue about.

Nevermind that Aussies have rigid structure in cricket, but in all sports. It's very good that Tendulkar may/may been as good as his contemporaries, but the situation would remain that he wouldn't have gotten the chance to showcase it. End-of. Ricky Ponting had a certain - not very common - situation which led him getting his shot early. But when did Ricky start?

Get a clue, no one here has any reason - other than logic - to argue with you. No one here hates Tendulkar and no one here is trying to deny he was a talent when he was very young. The situation remains that he'd have had to earn his dues to get to the test squad - no shortcuts, that is just how the Aussie culture is. I don't know how many times you have to get into an argument (with Australians) for this simple idea to get into that head of yours.

 

[Turbinator]

I love how this thread has become into a Australia vs India / Ponting vs Tendulkar !

 

[The Baconator]

Personally reckon he wouldn't be quite so popular or highly rated, partly because he wouldn't be able to bat against the Australia attack.

 

[Eclipse]

Go to cricketarchive.co.uk, go to Mumbai cricket association and request for Tendulkar's scores in his pre FC years.
You will find out - quite rightly so- he is far more illustrious in his youth than anyone else.

It's up to you to show me.. AND PONTINGS as well.. because you're the one trying to prove the point.

 

[shortpitched713]

He basically spelled it out for you. Unless that website doesn't exist or something...

 

[Eclipse]

Well he can bring up the stats & those of Pontings.. Why would I go there..