All about SR Tendulkar

[prasen9]

To be fair, SRT timed his ODI retirement rather well. Maybe he played about 10 ODIs more than what he should have in Australia and Bangladesh. He did rather well in Bangladesh but was lukewarm in Australia.

[Atithee]

Here is SRT's numbers since 11th October.

2010-2013 28 1607 146 35.71 2 2 1/5 92.50

An average of 35.7 over 28 tests. We have been carrying him for over three years in exchange for very mediocre performance.

While I do not think that one can time things that precisely except in hindsight, I think after the WC win would have been a fabulous time for him to retire from tests. The selectors should have certainly dropped him after the debacle in England. That was the travesty. We wasted the opportunity of the Australia series to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to Kohli, Rohit, Rahane, Manoj, etc.

Prasen, I will use your oft-used argument here. Yes, this is not a great average. It would also help if you could post the average of other Indian batsmen in the same period. Was SRT so much worse than others in the team at that point? Even if so, for a #4 bat, this is not an abysmal average. Furthermore, and here is where I am using your earlier line of reasoning, who should have replaced him? Were there better batsmen ready? We have still not discovered a great #6. Was there a #4 replacement so obvious? Of course, I always want young ones in the team and take a chance. So, I'd have brought in Chand or someone else at that time itself. But, you do not subscribe to my theory. Even today, I'd rope in an Aparajith, Zol, or my personal vote is for Samson as he could be a replacement for Dhoni too (yeah, we need to start thinking about the next WK after Dhoni now). However, Rahane deserves a chance. But not Badrinath, Rayudu, or the other domestic stalwarts such as Rajat Bhatia. Badrinath is a victim of circumstances, very unfortunate.

Anyway, I still stand by my line that it was an unsportsman like conduct on the part of Ganguly. Most likely, this CAB arranged meeting was to celebrate Tendulkar's contribution and not to question his current or prolonged stay in the team. Plus, even if a person is being canned, you do not remind them of their ineptness at their farewell party, let alone when saying goodbye to the best CEO you have ever had.

[prasen9]

I don't know much about the context of the Ganguly comments. Maybe it was in bad taste. I will skip that.

Let me clarify my logic. Generally, I want the best XI to play. But, if we are losing 4-0, then I would like the youngsters to play.

1. Criticizing myself, one can say that I am saying this in hindsight. Yes, that is true. So, I was wrong. But, the selectors were wrong to continue with him too. And they are the ones who are experts, are being paid, and one hopes would have made a better call.

2. A 36 run average is nothing great. If you put Yuvraj in the right circumstances, he would have produced that.

3. What is my reasoning in asking for his (or in general any player's) removal? This is the crucial point: After we lost 4-0, I was convinced the old team did not have it to win in Australia. It was clear that they would perform badly. If we are going to perform badly anyway, then I would choose the youngsters to give them the experience in the long run so that it would increase the chances of win (or the expected wins) in the long run.

In essence my policy is one that maximizes the expected wins overall. If the old guys are not producing wins, then retaining them adds nothing. I will have to look forward towards the future even if the expected gains are minuscule because players are not ready. The only case it does not make sense is if you are destroying the confidence of good young players by blooding them too soon. I do not think the candidates Rohit, Rahane, Manoj would fall in that category. They are all around 25 and have had more than enough FC and A-team games. If sacrificing the old guys means that you are going to win less, then I would not support that.

[I have not carefully thought about the analogy but this is sort of similar to the multi-armed bandit problem. We have to balance the exploitation (getting wins) with the exploration (preparing for future wins).]

4. Now about the comparables. In England, Dravid batted very well. If SRT had retired, maybe Dravid would not have felt the pressure to retire. So at least he took away matches from RSD. I think Kohli did not get chances in England. In Australia, Kohli batted slightly better than him. And Kohli has generally done fine in the chances he got. We have elected to play an allrounder Jadeja at #6 and he has generally contributed with the ball. Had SRT retired, we could have played Rohit or Rahane then.

The subtlety here is that SRT's occupying the spot is preventing us from building for the future. Maybe the replacement is not good enough but unless we try we will not know. Admittedly we learnt that Raina cannot bat abroad. But, we had to give him the chances. So, the faster we gave him the chances, the faster we could move on to the next candidate to find one who actually can.

Let me jump the gun and say that you will use the same argument wrt SCG --- to whom I am admittedly partial. It may well be that the same applied to SCG. But, the real test imho is whether sacrificing him resulted in us winning less. Did it cost us wins? If it did not cost us wins, then it was the right thing to do. I'll have to go back and check. In hindsight, SRT could not win us anything in Australia. And, a lot of us were reasonably sure that this old batting lineup would not. Hence, continuing with him was wrong. Taking him to England was wrong too but that is only known now in hindsight --- we did not guess that these guys (Gambhir, Sehwag, Laxman, SRT) would all go haywire there. So that can be justified. But it was wrong nonetheless. Generally, if you lose 4-0, then you should be making changes. So he should not have been there on the Australia team onwards.

Hope my reasoning is clear.

[Atithee]

Prasen, I understand what you're trying to say although you have cleverly skirted the issue that started this debate. But, that's fine. We don't know the context of SCG's remarks, so let it rest.

On the selection for the Australian tour, I think the team was largely selected based on previous Australian tours' experience. Blooding youngsters on such a tour would normally not be on any selectors' agenda. Plus, no one thought that such a successful and hitherto accomplished team would fail on two tours in a row, especially when facing one of the weakest Australian team in recent times. We played Kohli there, who else should have been blooded there? This team was the strongest Indian team to tour Australia. They failed badly. If you ask me, Sehwag should have been the first player dropped from that eleven. A strong opening is a must but even more so in Aus, Eng, and SAF. This is where we faltered.

These were SRT's scores on that trip -- 73, 32, 41, 80, 15, 8, 25, 13. He was the second highest run-getter. After losing the first two tests, he probably lost a bit of his passion. But, still he could not have done a lot better than he did in the first two tests.

Code: Select all

Player 	Mat 	Inns 	NO 	Runs 	HS 	Ave 	BF 	SR 	100 	50 	0 	4s 	6s
V Kohli 	4 	8 	0 	300 	116 	37.50 	579 	51.81 	1 	1 	1 	34 	1
SR Tendulkar 	4 	8 	0 	287 	80 	35.87 	518 	55.40 	0 	2 	0 	38 	1
R Ashwin 	3 	6 	1 	163 	62 	32.60 	225 	72.44 	0 	1 	0 	19 	2
V Sehwag 	4 	8 	0 	198 	67 	24.75 	257 	77.04 	0 	2 	1 	29 	0
R Dravid 	4 	8 	0 	194 	68 	24.25 	551 	35.20 	0 	1 	0 	25 	0
G Gambhir 	4 	8 	0 	181 	83 	22.62 	445 	40.67 	0 	1 	1 	22 	0
MS Dhoni 	3 	6 	1 	102 	57* 	20.40 	178 	57.30 	0 	1 	0 	10 	1
VVS Laxman 	4 	8 	0 	155 	66 	19.37 	390 	39.74 	0 	1 	1 	17 	0
WP Saha 	1 	2 	0 	38 	35 	19.00 	114 	33.33 	0 	0 	0 	1 	1
UT Yadav 	4 	8 	5 	28 	21 	9.33 	81 	34.56 	0 	0 	1 	3 	1
Z Khan 	4 	8 	0 	69 	35 	8.62 	86 	80.23 	0 	0 	3 	10 	2
I Sharma 	4 	8 	1 	49 	16 	7.00 	170 	28.82 	0 	0 	2 	5 	0
R Vinay Kumar 	1 	2 	0 	11 	6 	5.50 	24 	45.83 	0 	0 	0 	2 	0

I have been a fierce critic of SRT lately, but I wouldn't have dropped him from that tour. Aside from opening, I think VVS failed to produce his magic and our bowlers failed us too. Maybe we should have eschewed our false bravado and fetish for pace and taken Harbhajan along instead of the dreaded Ishant/Vinay Kumar duo.

Code: Select all

Player 	Mat 	Inns 	Overs 	Mdns 	Runs 	Wkts 	BBI 	BBM 	Ave 	Econ 	SR 	5 	10 	Ct 	St
Z Khan 	4 	6 	147.0 	22 	477 	15 	4/77 	7/130 	31.80 	3.24 	58.8 	0 	0 	0 	0
UT Yadav 	4 	6 	118.0 	14 	551 	14 	5/93 	7/176 	39.35 	4.66 	50.5 	1 	0 	1 	0
R Ashwin 	3 	5 	168.0 	20 	565 	9 	3/81 	5/267 	62.77 	3.36 	112.0 	0 	0 	1 	0
R Vinay Kumar 	1 	1 	13.0 	0 	73 	1 	1/73 	1/73 	73.00 	5.61 	78.0 	0 	0 	0 	0
I Sharma 	4 	6 	125.3 	15 	451 	5 	2/43 	2/91 	90.20 	3.59 	150.6 	0 	0 	0 	0
V Sehwag 	4 	4 	48.2 	1 	157 	1 	1/20 	1/20 	157.00 	3.24 	290.0 	0 	0 	3 	0
V Kohli 	4 	2 	9.0 	0 	26 	0 	- 	- 	- 	2.88 	- 	0 	0 	3 	0

P.S. Can someone tell me how to get these tables properly formatted?

[prasen9]

But the point really is of what use? One of Rahane, Rohit, and Manoj, if fit, should have been blooded there. Maybe they would have scored 24 instead of the 35 runs SRT scored. The end result would have been the same. After the England hiding something should have been changed and that something was not only Raina. It should have been some of the oldies. If I recall correctly I had called for replacing Laxman. Nevertheless, even after the Australia tour SRT continued to play. He should have retired way back. Then maybe we would have known if Rahane can bat in India or not. If he could not, then we could have taken someone else to RSA and given him experience. Anyway, everything related to the inevitable rebuilding has been pushed back three years with respect to one position. See how Dravid and Laxman retired selflessly. I do not think Dravid would have been dropped at least 1-2 series if he had not step down. SRT did not. I do not like people who think they should retire on high but when you are old and your form is obviously dipping for a while, then it is the right thing to do.

I did not comment on SCG's comments that much because it is a matter of personal taste. I can respect your opinion on that and even agree somewhat that it was uncouth. But I think there is more factual basis to the fact that SRT has stayed on in the test team three years beyond when he should have retired. Hence I am arguing that.

I hope he goes out with a double century.

[PKBasu]

Here is SRT's numbers since 11th October.

2010-2013 28 1607 146 35.71 2 2 1/5 92.50

An average of 35.7 over 28 tests. We have been carrying him for over three years in exchange for very mediocre performance.

While I do not think that one can time things that precisely except in hindsight, I think after the WC win would have been a fabulous time for him to retire from tests. The selectors should have certainly dropped him after the debacle in England. That was the travesty. We wasted the opportunity of the Australia series to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to Kohli, Rohit, Rahane, Manoj, etc.

Actually, an average of 35.7 over three years is not grounds for dropping a person, especially one of the greatest batsmen of all time. Sachin wasn't performing up to his own high standards, but in the first two tests in Australia he was still our best batsman, and in England only Dravid (in sublime form) was better. Dravid did poorly in Australia, and Laxman (who had had a poor tour of England) disappointed in Australia for once. We were dealing with three truly great batsmen, and none of them could quite decide when it was time to go. That was sad, and very unfortunate for the team's performance, but others didn't step up either. Notice that we have now had wholesale change -- the entire batting line-up other than Sachin is new, and doing reasonably well, but mainly in tests in India. The real test will be over the next 12 months, when we tour South Africa and England.

With regard to Ganguly's remarks (that were cited by Atithee), I think that was the only time over the past month that he said anything of the sort. There is a very deep and genuine friendship between Ganguly and Tendulkar -- and this was evident from all of Sourav's remarks on TV (commentary) and in the press before and during the Eden test (talking about their association and camaraderie right from the time they were 14-year-olds playing schoolboy cricket for India on a tour of England, with photos from his personal album, etc). The city newspapers were blanketed with Ganguly's praise of Sachin, and of his call to Calcuttans to express their love of Sachin by coming out in droves for the Test match -- which they responded to. In the spirit of friendship, Ganguly is the one man who can occasionally say some uncomfortable things to/about Sachin (sometime jokingly -- "you will be more popular than me for those five days in Calcutta, but sorry, not afterwards..." -- and sometimes more seriously). I think there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill, and I haven't seen anyone doing that in the Indian press re those remarks.

[prasen9]

Actually, an average of 35.7 over three years is not grounds for dropping a person, especially one of the greatest batsmen of all time.

What good does retaining him have? He was certainly not winning us matches that a replacement would not. What is grounds will differ from person to person. To me, sentimentality has no value. We need to be ruthlessly pragmatic in order to be and remain the best in the world. The "greatest batsmen of all time" is sort of hyped. Yes, he is a great. But, he is only marginally better than RSD or Gavaskar. Or Kallis, Ponting, Sangakarra, etc. He is no Bradman. Even if it was Bradman, if he starts producing like Yuvraj, then we drop him. I understand that you or anyone else would be guided by your yardsticks. I am just saying what mine is.

Sachin wasn't performing up to his own high standards, but in the first two tests in Australia he was still our best batsman, and in England only Dravid (in sublime form) was better. Dravid did poorly in Australia, and Laxman (who had had a poor tour of England) disappointed in Australia for once.

Just because everyone else around him was failing does not mean that we retain him. We give the youngsters a chance to learn by playing on these wickets so that they can win us the next series when we tour Australia.

Not only was Sachin not performing up to his own high standards, he was not performing to basic acceptable standards. That we have dropped Yuvraj means that 35 runs/inning give or take a couple is not acceptable. Imho that (dropping Yuvraj) is the correct decision and the right standard to set. If you have been substandard for three years, you should have been told to go by the selectors. One could tolerate a year or maybe even two for a great, but, not this long. Sachin failed in his last 7 ODIs in Australia too. But that bit of rope is acceptable. Not a three year rope in tests that he got.

[Sandeep]

In the hindsight, it appears that Sachin didn't retire at the right time but I don't understand the fuss behind it. Which sportsperson retired in his prime apart from few exceptions like Gavaskar? It is not just about Sachin or Indian batsmen, you will always find sportspersons dragging their feet when it comes to retirement and Sachin is no exception. In my opinion, he retired at the right time, if the definition of "right" is what the generally accepted norm for retirement is and not what one individual thinks.

[Sandeep]

Sachin probably started a little too early than what many cricketers do and probably played 2 years more than what he should have (in the hindsight). But his best years are unmatched for sheer brilliance, consistency with which he performed and the number of runs he amassed. I always thought Sachin matured fully as a cricketer in 1996 and went on to become GOD after the world cup in the same year where he was by far the best batsman. As we now know his best years ended in 2011. That is like 15 years of great great cricket, which is the career span for 99% of the cricketers. Here are Sachin's stats in those 15 years

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ew=innings

It is as good as it can get, 139 tests, 12209 runs, 43 hundreds with an average of over 58!! Phenomenal stats.

Here are the figures for ODI in the same period

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ew=innings

342 matches, 14417 runs, 42 hundreds with an average of over 47!

No other batsman in the history has so easily shifted the gears between the two formats. We will probably never see a player like Sachin again.

Today, for his farewell this is what we should celebrate and not argue on what he did over the last 2 years! We all are blessed, whether you are a Sachin fan or not, to have been part of a phenomenal era which will be discussed over the next 100 years.

If Sachin was born in England they would have made him the greatest sportsperson of all time and not just cricket.

[suresh]

@Sandeep Nice to have you back. There is no doubt in just about everybody's mind about Sachin's greatness. It is just that he played on when he should have retired -- this was aided and abetted by our spineless selectors. It was awful listening to commentary on AIR today -- the Sachin business was being over done. We were told when his son took a toilet break and Pujara scoring runs was a distraction. At the end of the day, it is an international test match and not a toast for a great player.

[PKBasu]

Sandeep, I agree 100% with what you have said.... Now that might well be a first too

I too had a lump in my throat, when I took a short break from TV watching to grab some lunch, came back and found he had just got out and had begun that very dignified trudge back to the pavilion. He was truly an ornament to the game of cricket. It was a pleasure watching him bat in both the innings he played in this series (the 10 live in Calcutta too, which included two delectable on-side strokes for four).

But I agree with Suresh that the hype is wildly overdone and over the top -- and I hate it when Indian crowds cheer the fall of the first two wickets, as they did in both Calcutta and Mumbai (making me cringe both times, especially while sitting at the Eden). Btw, on a separate note, I must say that the new Eden Gardens stadium is really a huge disappointment when compared with the magnificent new arena that has been built at the Wankhede, where I had the pleasure of watching the WC final on 2nd April 2011 sitting in the Sachin Tendulkar Stand.

[prasen9]

In my opinion, he retired at the right time, if the definition of "right" is what the generally accepted norm for retirement is and not what one individual thinks.

Wow! There is a "generally accepted norm for retirement"? Was this designed by one person? Pray elaborate on it or preferably subsantiate? Anyone can make unsubstantiated grand statements. Were there any surveys done in the population? The average player is not retained three years beyond starting to perform at or below average levels.

Sachin has no doubt been the best Indian batsman ever. Am I sad that I will not be watching him bat again? A resounding yes. But, the team comes before any individual. SRT has been marginally better than his peers and not the next coming of Bradman as has been portrayed in the media. We Indians like celebrations and over-hyping. So, the media circus is nothing new.

[gbelday]

It is indeed a very sad day. My 11 year old was following the match very closely asked me a couple of times "Dad why aren't you watching Sachin play. The legend is retiring and you are not even interested?" I told him that I am very sad and can't watch him getting out Thank you Sachin for all your contributions to Indian cricket. There will not be another player like you in my lifetime! He may not have the best stats but without him, I doubt if Cricket would have had such a big fan following in India.

[PKBasu]

Sandeep makes an important point. Sachin started at 16, and played continuously for 24 years -- in two different formats of the game. Bradman played 52 tests over a 20-year career span -- and played only in two countries, England and Australia. He played series against the West Indies, India and South Africa -- but these were all at home. He never toured those countries, so his batting abilities were never really tested in differing, variable conditions (ie, on the spinning tracks of India, where Mankad would surely have troubled him much more, or the pacy Caribbean tracks, or Port of Spain).

[prasen9]

PKB that is fine. I agree that we cannot compare batsmen from different eras. But, the hype does not match the production. He was just slightly better than Dravid, Sangakarra, Chappell, Lara, Miandad, Clarke, or Ponting. Ponting or Lara or Chappell did not get a fraction of the hype that he gets because we Indians love hyperbole. The only metric by which he is substantially better than his peers is his longevity.