DeLonge182
Club Cricketer
ravigoteti said:
every team has talented players..........some are just more talented than others, and those dont make the cut.
Sachin Tendulkar's attitude
- Thread starter The Champ
- Start date
every team has talented players..........some are just more talented than others, and those dont make the cut.
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
you cannot divide talented players nor can you "rank" talents. Players are either talented or not, but whats more important is making use of their talent. I don't see this in the indian team, where if they make full use of Kaif, Yuvraj and many others, india would be a much better team than it is now.
DeLonge182
Club Cricketer
well whenever they've been given the oppertunity their to in consistant
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
give me an example of that. Kaif and Yuvraj....kaif was consistent from the Aussie series, constantly making runs. Yuvraj too has been among runs in domestic cricket. now, you put them in the team and ask them to hit big in the last 5 overs is no justice. 1) Either send them up the order for them to get some runs, as it boosts your confidence or 2) let them stay there and play their game and not comment!
Ravi, I think the second option is just 300% impossible with the media and the cricket watching public. The media blows the public opinion and mixes in their opinion to really put pressure on the players.
Either one of these two (Kaif or Yuvraj) should bat at No.6 (No.7 if Dhoni is promoted!).
Either one of these two (Kaif or Yuvraj) should bat at No.6 (No.7 if Dhoni is promoted!).
The Champ
International Coach
Agree with ur opinion matesaisrini80 said:
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
i cannot disagree with that but i don't see a major shuffle in the batting order anysoon except may be Dhoni.
I think we are a bit..off topic but coming back to sachin, an interesting article in cricinfo here
Tendulkar, Wisden and a furore of ignorance
Sambit Bal
April 9, 2005
In the beginning it was amusing, but now it has become nauseating. What started with a deliberate manipulation by a national broadsheet is now a full-blown epidemic, with the ignorant and the polemicists enjoying a free ride. At the centre of this utterly senseless controversy is Sachin Tendulkar, the victim, and the Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, allegedly the perpetrator of a malicious campaign against him.
It started like this. On April 7, The Indian Express, a newspaper known for its pursuit of hard news stories, carried a front-page article headlined: "Wisden pops the query: Sachin?" The tagline that preceded the story, helpfully added: "Failure to play a matchwinner in 15 years rankles". The story started with this paragraph from the then yet-to-be released Wisden Cricketers' Almanack:
Apart from a glorious, nothing-to-lose 55 against Australia on a Mumbai terrortrack, watching Tendulkar became a colder experience: after his humbling 2003, he seemed to reject his bewitching fusion of majesty and human frailty in favour of a mechanical, robotic accumulation.
From here, the newspaper story went on the examine Tendulkar's contribution to Indian cricket, his inability to win crucial matches for India and his failure in key matches. It concluded with this question: has the superstar been reduced to a mere passenger in the Indian team?
Wisden was evoked once more in the piece. "The majesty ? as Wisden noted ? is missing, the touch is barely there and after 123 Tests in over 15 years, he is yet to play that defining innings that has won a game for the country." Clever tactics this, borrowing one word from Wisden then adding ten more, while making it appear that Wisden said all of it. In fact when I first saw the newspaper on Thursday morning, I thought there was a major essay on Tendulkar in the Almanack which I had not known about.
What it turned out was that there was a 125-word review of Tendulkar's performance in 2004. It was part of the Wisden Forty feature, where 40 leading cricketers of he world are listed on the basis of their performance in the previous calendar year, 2004 in this case. There were five other Indian players in the list, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh. This is what the whole piece on Tendulkar read:
Having spent his career delighting the purists, Tendulkar spent 2004 whipping the statisticians into a frenzy. In Tests, he played a remarkable three-card trick: 495 runs without being dismissed to start the year; then seven single- figure scores in eight innings either side of tennis elbow; finally normal service resumed with an average of 284 in the series in Bangladesh. Apart from a glorious, nothing-to-lose 55 against Australia on a Mumbai terrortrack, watching Tendulkar became a colder experience: after his humbling 2003, he seemed to reject his bewitching fusion of majesty and human frailty in favour of a mechanical, robotic accumulation. The end ? an average of 91 for the year ? justified the means, but the game was the poorer for it.
That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. But amazingly, even before the copies were officially released this became the subject of a front-page headline in one of India's leading newspapers. "Wisden pops the query: Sachin?" What query? The Wisden pen-sketch was merely an observation on the way he batted in 2004. It was not even an original observation; Tendulkar's changed approach to batting is a much-traveled territory now and even Tendulkar himself has talked about it. But where in the Almanack piece was the question about his career and contribution to the Indian cause? There can be no issue with any publication wanting to raise these questions, but why fire from somebody else shoulders?
The Express piece has spawned many follow-ups. Some newspapers merely reported what Wisden had said, some went looking for reactions from former cricketers, and some have taken upon the themselves the task of defending Tendulkar against this "myopic and biased attempt at humiliating a cricketer." How touching indeed. It would have been funny, weren't it so pathetic.
There is another wave of indignation sweeping across India. That's over the choice of the five cricketers of the year. Five Englishmen, huh. Ashley Giles? What a joke. Robert Key? Can he even hold a place in the England side? The idea of debating the Almanack's choice is a fair one. It's fair too to question the criteria used for nomination, and the relevance of the Wisden Five to the rest of the world, but to ignore the criteria altogether is absurd, and if willful, seriously malicious. Two great Test players of the past made quite a scene on a television show last night.
What about Virender Sehwag? asked Wasim Akram indignantly on a television show, smugly waving Sehwag's average last season. What about Irfan Pathan, piped in Geoff Boycott, wasn't he ICC's young player of the year? Who is this editor making all this decisions sitting on his desk, has he played even one Test?
But can 100 Tests be an excuse for ignorance? Perhaps Akram can be excused, for he proudly proclaimed that he had never read an Almanack, but Boycott, surely he should have been wiser. For someone who has lived, played and commentated in England all his life and been a cricketer of the year in the second year of his international career, not to know that the Wisden Five are traditionally chosen on the basis of performances in the English season and that no cricketer can win it twice is a bit odd. And to spread his ignorance to thousands of unsuspecting television watchers is plain irresponsible. The question that could have been asked instead is that if the Wisden Five are to be chosen from the English season, should they not be promoted as such?
But who are we to tell good old Boycs that? Have we played a Test?
I think we are a bit..off topic but coming back to sachin, an interesting article in cricinfo here
Tendulkar, Wisden and a furore of ignorance
Sambit Bal
April 9, 2005
In the beginning it was amusing, but now it has become nauseating. What started with a deliberate manipulation by a national broadsheet is now a full-blown epidemic, with the ignorant and the polemicists enjoying a free ride. At the centre of this utterly senseless controversy is Sachin Tendulkar, the victim, and the Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, allegedly the perpetrator of a malicious campaign against him.
It started like this. On April 7, The Indian Express, a newspaper known for its pursuit of hard news stories, carried a front-page article headlined: "Wisden pops the query: Sachin?" The tagline that preceded the story, helpfully added: "Failure to play a matchwinner in 15 years rankles". The story started with this paragraph from the then yet-to-be released Wisden Cricketers' Almanack:
Apart from a glorious, nothing-to-lose 55 against Australia on a Mumbai terrortrack, watching Tendulkar became a colder experience: after his humbling 2003, he seemed to reject his bewitching fusion of majesty and human frailty in favour of a mechanical, robotic accumulation.
From here, the newspaper story went on the examine Tendulkar's contribution to Indian cricket, his inability to win crucial matches for India and his failure in key matches. It concluded with this question: has the superstar been reduced to a mere passenger in the Indian team?
Wisden was evoked once more in the piece. "The majesty ? as Wisden noted ? is missing, the touch is barely there and after 123 Tests in over 15 years, he is yet to play that defining innings that has won a game for the country." Clever tactics this, borrowing one word from Wisden then adding ten more, while making it appear that Wisden said all of it. In fact when I first saw the newspaper on Thursday morning, I thought there was a major essay on Tendulkar in the Almanack which I had not known about.
What it turned out was that there was a 125-word review of Tendulkar's performance in 2004. It was part of the Wisden Forty feature, where 40 leading cricketers of he world are listed on the basis of their performance in the previous calendar year, 2004 in this case. There were five other Indian players in the list, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh. This is what the whole piece on Tendulkar read:
Having spent his career delighting the purists, Tendulkar spent 2004 whipping the statisticians into a frenzy. In Tests, he played a remarkable three-card trick: 495 runs without being dismissed to start the year; then seven single- figure scores in eight innings either side of tennis elbow; finally normal service resumed with an average of 284 in the series in Bangladesh. Apart from a glorious, nothing-to-lose 55 against Australia on a Mumbai terrortrack, watching Tendulkar became a colder experience: after his humbling 2003, he seemed to reject his bewitching fusion of majesty and human frailty in favour of a mechanical, robotic accumulation. The end ? an average of 91 for the year ? justified the means, but the game was the poorer for it.
That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. But amazingly, even before the copies were officially released this became the subject of a front-page headline in one of India's leading newspapers. "Wisden pops the query: Sachin?" What query? The Wisden pen-sketch was merely an observation on the way he batted in 2004. It was not even an original observation; Tendulkar's changed approach to batting is a much-traveled territory now and even Tendulkar himself has talked about it. But where in the Almanack piece was the question about his career and contribution to the Indian cause? There can be no issue with any publication wanting to raise these questions, but why fire from somebody else shoulders?
The Express piece has spawned many follow-ups. Some newspapers merely reported what Wisden had said, some went looking for reactions from former cricketers, and some have taken upon the themselves the task of defending Tendulkar against this "myopic and biased attempt at humiliating a cricketer." How touching indeed. It would have been funny, weren't it so pathetic.
There is another wave of indignation sweeping across India. That's over the choice of the five cricketers of the year. Five Englishmen, huh. Ashley Giles? What a joke. Robert Key? Can he even hold a place in the England side? The idea of debating the Almanack's choice is a fair one. It's fair too to question the criteria used for nomination, and the relevance of the Wisden Five to the rest of the world, but to ignore the criteria altogether is absurd, and if willful, seriously malicious. Two great Test players of the past made quite a scene on a television show last night.
What about Virender Sehwag? asked Wasim Akram indignantly on a television show, smugly waving Sehwag's average last season. What about Irfan Pathan, piped in Geoff Boycott, wasn't he ICC's young player of the year? Who is this editor making all this decisions sitting on his desk, has he played even one Test?
But can 100 Tests be an excuse for ignorance? Perhaps Akram can be excused, for he proudly proclaimed that he had never read an Almanack, but Boycott, surely he should have been wiser. For someone who has lived, played and commentated in England all his life and been a cricketer of the year in the second year of his international career, not to know that the Wisden Five are traditionally chosen on the basis of performances in the English season and that no cricketer can win it twice is a bit odd. And to spread his ignorance to thousands of unsuspecting television watchers is plain irresponsible. The question that could have been asked instead is that if the Wisden Five are to be chosen from the English season, should they not be promoted as such?
But who are we to tell good old Boycs that? Have we played a Test?
sohum
Executive member
Aha...that's a good article. If Boycott didn't know that then I can plainly blaim the media for messing up with the presentation of facts. And the author completely agrees with me with the fact that the Cricketer's of the Year should be promoted as those who have had an effect on the English season.
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
i have to agree with you regarding Geoff. Boycott. It might be a "joke" though but yea the media and the mass equally look for what icons SAY not what they MEAN.
Finally there is an article that should silence the so called critics of sachin. Come on, an average of 91, regardless of the opposition, is good enough to be called a "great" and sachin is one! His ODI performances may not be as good but we cannot blame him at all! Well...i guess we can only if we score 70+ hundreds. The thing is, when greats like Viv. Richards, Sunny, Tony greig, Holding, Chappel etc do not comment on Sachin, why do we?
We'll just leave it to sachin, and as fans hope for his bat to answer our questions as well.
Finally there is an article that should silence the so called critics of sachin. Come on, an average of 91, regardless of the opposition, is good enough to be called a "great" and sachin is one! His ODI performances may not be as good but we cannot blame him at all! Well...i guess we can only if we score 70+ hundreds. The thing is, when greats like Viv. Richards, Sunny, Tony greig, Holding, Chappel etc do not comment on Sachin, why do we?
We'll just leave it to sachin, and as fans hope for his bat to answer our questions as well.
ravigoteti said:
An avg of 91 .
ok thats good....
but do you know that anil kumble had the best batting avg during the recent indo pak series.?
You talk about 'regardless of opposition'....Tendulkar scored only against bangladesh last year.he sat out of aus tour and dint perform against saf.
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
a 241 against aus and a 194 against pak should not be bad scores right? his match-winning 55 too was good. MIND YOU, he was suffering from tennis elbow and you should be happy that he actually played the SA series and even this pak series. So be thankful rather than being critical.
Remember what Viv.Richards said, "leave that man alone, neither you nor i can talk to him about his game" in 2003 when his form was bad.
The question is..why on earth do you care? or even me. You like to watch cricket, then watch without comments. IF you do not like they way some are playing, then please do not watch. We have to right to put others down when we are as good as them. For now, no one is as good as sachin and thus cannot comment on him -vely.
Remember what Viv.Richards said, "leave that man alone, neither you nor i can talk to him about his game" in 2003 when his form was bad.
The question is..why on earth do you care? or even me. You like to watch cricket, then watch without comments. IF you do not like they way some are playing, then please do not watch. We have to right to put others down when we are as good as them. For now, no one is as good as sachin and thus cannot comment on him -vely.
I agree with you that sachin is a good player .
I f you like to watch cricket,you cannot watch it without criticism.If you dont want in criticism,there should be no commentry.
I'm just one of the guys who are criticizing tendulkar and ganguly,but how many mouths are you going to keep shut?
My answer to your question'why do we care'?
This is because ...cricket brings in enthusiasm in the public.Its the most famous sport out here...Have you ever heard ppl criticizing some hockey player for not performing well?
I f you like to watch cricket,you cannot watch it without criticism.If you dont want in criticism,there should be no commentry.
I'm just one of the guys who are criticizing tendulkar and ganguly,but how many mouths are you going to keep shut?
My answer to your question'why do we care'?
This is because ...cricket brings in enthusiasm in the public.Its the most famous sport out here...Have you ever heard ppl criticizing some hockey player for not performing well?
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
I cannot disagree with the point you made. But you have to accept the fact that your criticism is not going to help the situation. If sachin is going through a lean patch, then he is and what is the solution? well only sachin can answer. Just not as fans but also as audience we can hope for the best (that can be a 100 or may be he tries but fails again)...thats sportiveness.
ravigoteti
Club Cricketer
he indeed must have seen this thread. Wonderful knock underpressure, you could see those vintage shots from the great man coming. The two sixes, pulls of the front foot and the impressive reverse sweep!
A fitting reply to this thread and to other's questions.
A fitting reply to this thread and to other's questions.
