India v Australia, 2nd Test, Bangalore, 3rd day October 11, 2010

The master decision-maker

Tendulkar's ability to assess risk and stay aware of every little detail are the cornerstones of his art
102

For a man who has been blessed with every stroke, Sachin Tendulkar can sometimes reveal his genius while stealing a single. As Australia, in the manner of most contemporary teams, went into boundary-denying mode after the first session today, Tendulkar switched to accumulation gear, with deft nudges and glides, pushes and silent drives. One of these strokes can be used to illustrate his command over his batting faculties.

It came off Ben Hilfenhaus. It was the ideal run-denying ball, just short of a good length, a tad outside off stump, not full enough to drive, not short enough to cut. Tendulkar was in position early - marginally back and fully across - but waited on the ball just that fraction longer and opened the bat face with a last-moment flick of the wrist to send the ball wide of Ricky Ponting, still Australia's best all-position fielder, at shortish cover. Off went Tendulkar.

Singles look easy, but they are not always so. Murali Vijay, Tendulkar's partner in the monstrous third-wicket partnership that lifted India out of potential disaster, nearly ran Virender Sehwag out twice last evening. Today, on two occasions he might have run himself out. The art of the sharp single lies not merely in placing the ball but in also knowing the speed at which it will travel to the fielder. Always knowing where the ball is is one of the vital features of Tendulkar's greatness.

Inextricably linked to this is his nose for risk assessment. In the best and the worst of times, batting boils down to managing risks. Some balls are just too good for even the best batsmen. Beyond that, every ball carries the opportunity of a run, and every stroke the danger of dismissal. Few cricketers have possessed Tendulkar's command over such a wide range of strokes, but mere possession of strokes is never enough; it is the instinct - batsmen have only a millisecond to exercise the option - about the choice of stroke that accounts for success or failure.

Among all the staggering numbers that decorate Tendulkar's career the number of balls faced is an apparently mundane statistic. But it tells you that he has been called upon on over 26,000 occasions to exercise his option, many of those against the world's finest bowlers. And more than anything else, it is the certainty of his mind and a constant awareness of his own strengths and those of his opponents that have carried him to well over 30,000 international runs. In Tests, which can turn upon a single dismissal, Tendulkar has been bested only 140 times.

At the Chinnaswamy Stadium today, all bowlers came a distant second best. Admittedly the pitch was benign and Australia had a debutant and a spinner out of his depth. Still, it was a mighty and masterful innings. It wasn't as much a matter of being chanceless as it was about snuffing out hope for the bowlers.

On one occasion Peter George got Tendulkar to fend off awkwardly a ball that rose from a length, but there wasn't a catching man in sight. And the ball passed the outside edge a couple of times when Tendulkar looked to guide it behind the wicket. But the closest Australia came to earning his wicket was when Mitchell Johnson beat him outside the off stump on 99 and Hilfenhaus produced an inside edge that squeezed past the leg stump. Apart from those moments, the Australians mainly bowled to him in hope.

Earlier in the day it seemed they had a plan for him, but that was given short shrift. Ricky Ponting posted two men in catching position on the leg side - deep backward and forward short legs - and Johnson pounded in purposefully. The first ball was thrown wide, to which Tendulkar considered a stroke before letting it go. But a short ball duly arrived next and Tendulkar swivelled to pull between the wicketkeeper and Michael Clarke. The next one was even shorter and pulled in front of square. One of the catching men was promptly dispatched to the square-leg boundary, and having busted the plan, Tendulkar put away the pull shot for the rest of the day. There were too many fielders in the deep to make it worth his while.

The morning session featured seven fours and two sixes. Six of the fours came in pairs. Hauritz gifted Tendulkar two at the start of day by slipping them down the pad, and Shane Watson was carved either side of cover after a field had been set to choke Tendulkar on the leg side. He got to his hundred with two massive sixes off Hauritz over long-on. These were peculiarly identical shots, powerfully shovelled from within the crease with the right knee bent. The shots would have delighted his son, who had suggested with startling simplicity at a time when Tendulkar was struggling to convert his 90s that he should hit a six when on 94. But the truth is that it was the sixth instance of Tendulkar bringing up his hundred with a six.

More tellingly, these were the only lofted shots he played during the day. Like all great batsmen, Tendulkar not only knows when to seize the moment, but also how to temper his game to the circumstances.

And, so, when Australia spread the field, Tendulkar didn't hit a four till the final over of the second session, when Johnson served up a leg-side offering that he clipped to fine leg. He motored along in the last session, picking gaps in the field and finding opportune boundaries. In the course of his innings he went past 3000 runs against Australia, only the third man to do so, and in the fewest number of Tests.

On his last tour of Australia Tendulkar was given rapturous ovations by an adoring public each time he went in or out. But the Australians might not have seen the last of him. Fifty Test hundreds are but a formality. A hundred international hundreds are there for the taking. Tendulkar, though, endures not in the pursuit of milestones, but because he can't fall out of love with cricket. And above anything else that's the reason why he remains the most-loved cricketer.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 20:10 GMT

    Au_Co, thanks for those stats. Is your conclusion then that Lara did better than Tendulkar against the best bowlers of the day?

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 20:09 GMT

    ZA77, thanks for your discussion too. I think I finally get what you mean by the effect of timeless test matches. Basically, spinners would bowl more deliveries in these matches and therefore, the quality spinners would have had more chances to take wickets? I will do some research on that.

  • ZA77 on October 18, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    First of all thank you for all of you who maintained a very good environment, also thank for to Mr. Sambit Bal. Dear BillyCC, yes it is right that the way Sir Don crushed English bowlers of those days is absolutely marvelous. As I think, not necessary that you will agree, Sir Don had a problem to face googly so when he had to faced Grimmett and Reilly at English pitches, I think he would not be able to score smoothly as conditions in England helped wrist spinners. In AUS, due to timeless matches, they would delivered the balls equivalent to 4 spinners. Sutcliff on the other hand, had to face them together too plus Mailey and Grimmett together also in early days. In some matches both delivered more than or near to 1000 - 1200 balls per match which I think is impossible for anyone to survive. Then it never happened in history that team had to face more than or near to 200 overs of quality wrist spinners. Else IronMonger with bowling average 17.97 was there too plus Gregory also.

  • Au_co on October 18, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    If we use Statistics in a right way, then I think, stats can give us the quality. For eg. Let us see how Sachin and Lara probably the best of our times, has fared better against good bowlers of our times. Sachin Tendulkar Vs Player Matches Runs HS Bat. Ave. 100s GD Mcgrath 9 662 126 36.77 2 AA Donald 11 658 169 32.90 2 SM Pollock 12 834 169 39.71 2 SK Warne 12 1209 177 60.45 5 M Muralitharan 19 1216 143 48.64 5 C Vaas 11 908 148 53.41 5 W Akram 7 395 136 32.91 1 W Younus 4 278 136 39.71 1 S Bond 2 100 51 25.00 0

    Brian Lara Vs Player Matches Runs HS Bat. Ave. 100s GD Mcgrath 24 2041 226 46.38 6 AA Donald 10 681 83 34.05 0 SM Pollock 15 1245 202 42.93 2 SK Warne 20 1837 277 54.02 5 M Muralitharan 8 1125 221 86.53 5 C Vaas 8 1125 221 86.53 5 W Akram 7 394 96 30.30 0 W Younus 6 354 96 32.18 0 S Bond 4 237 83 39.50 0

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 7:10 GMT

    ZA77, I agree that statistics are not always the best yardstick. My argument is that the English bowlers in Bradman's era would have had greater impact had Bradman either not existed, or had he gotten out on average about 50 runs earlier than he usually did. For example, if Bradman had played for England, maybe O'Reilly, Ironmonger, Grimmett etc. would have had worse figures.

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    waspsting, I haven't heard that story, thanks. I am fairly sure that there are bowlers today who are very happy and overjoyed to get Sehwag and/or Gambhir out, only to see Dravid and Tendulkar next at the crease. I imagine this is what it was like for the bowler when Bradman came in to bat. And if you can imagine how Tendulkar's batting partners have benefited by batting with him over the years, then imagine the effect of Bradman's batting partners feeding off the relentless scoring and the draining of confidence from the opposition bowlers.

  • ZA77 on October 17, 2010, 21:06 GMT

    Dear BillyCC, yes statistic has their value but it is not the exact yardstick. I think we should talk about the impact of those bowlers in match instead of focusing on average. Why we said Grimmet and O Reilly are the best of those days because they have more impact on game as compare to others. In Bradman team no one was like him as he was better than them. But when we talk about Headley, he had comparsion with him like his average 71.23 against England as compare to him 89.78. Headley average against AUS was 37.33 and Sutcliff 66.85, almost double although both have same batting average but in real sense, Sutcliff had not get chance against English bowlers. Could we say, he was almost double better than Headley due to average and Headley was equal to Sir Don from quality point of veiw. Sutcliff proved himself against the prime attack of those days. For this reason, I think Sutcliff was the best of those days. Mailey, Grimmett, Reilly, Ironmonger, Wall, Kelleway and others.

  • waspsting on October 17, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    BillyCC - Neville Cardus told a story about being in the press box with Larwood during the 50/51 Ashes series. On a normal pitch, neither team could reach 200 in any of 4 completed innings. He noticed Larwood was brooding and asked him what was on his mind. Larwood replied, "look at them, getting out on this beautiful pitch", and then went silent again. after a few more minutes of silence, he spoke again. "you know, Mr Cardus, when I look back on my own test career, i seem to have spent all my time bowling at Bradman?" A cry from the heart, Cardus concluded

  • BillyCC on October 17, 2010, 1:13 GMT

    So if you take 1700 runs off Bradman, you have to take off more runs for the foregone potential partnerships. Let's say he outscored his partners 2 to 1, so you take off another 850 runs off the English bowling total, leaving an overall bowling average of 29. Also, by getting Bradman out earlier (and a number 3 batsman at that), you increase the likelihood of getting the whole team out for less runs, because it gives the opposition more confidence and a lift in spirits (many situations like this can be observed today). I haven't put a number to this factor, but it starts to show that maybe the English bowlers weren't so bad, it's just that Bradman was very very good. Happy to take comments so that my analysis can be improved.

  • BillyCC on October 17, 2010, 1:04 GMT

    I've tried to do some analysis following waspsting's comment: Bradman in particular, just made the english look bad. In their entire Test history, English bowlers have on average, averaged 32 with the ball (Statsguru). The contentious argument was that the bowling during the Bradman era was sub-standard. ZA77 points out that they didn't take many wickets and their averages were not great either. The golden age of English bowling was in the 1950s when the average bowling average was 24. Against Australia between 1928-1938 (Pre-war Bradman era), the English bowling average was 35 (approx 16000 runs vs 460 wickets). In this period, Bradman averaged 91, scoring 3840 runs in 46 innings with 4 not outs. So what if Bradman had a great but not extraordinary average eg. 50. You take off around 1700 runs and the English bowling average improves to 31. But the story doesn't end there. (to be cont'd)

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 20:10 GMT

    Au_Co, thanks for those stats. Is your conclusion then that Lara did better than Tendulkar against the best bowlers of the day?

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 20:09 GMT

    ZA77, thanks for your discussion too. I think I finally get what you mean by the effect of timeless test matches. Basically, spinners would bowl more deliveries in these matches and therefore, the quality spinners would have had more chances to take wickets? I will do some research on that.

  • ZA77 on October 18, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    First of all thank you for all of you who maintained a very good environment, also thank for to Mr. Sambit Bal. Dear BillyCC, yes it is right that the way Sir Don crushed English bowlers of those days is absolutely marvelous. As I think, not necessary that you will agree, Sir Don had a problem to face googly so when he had to faced Grimmett and Reilly at English pitches, I think he would not be able to score smoothly as conditions in England helped wrist spinners. In AUS, due to timeless matches, they would delivered the balls equivalent to 4 spinners. Sutcliff on the other hand, had to face them together too plus Mailey and Grimmett together also in early days. In some matches both delivered more than or near to 1000 - 1200 balls per match which I think is impossible for anyone to survive. Then it never happened in history that team had to face more than or near to 200 overs of quality wrist spinners. Else IronMonger with bowling average 17.97 was there too plus Gregory also.

  • Au_co on October 18, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    If we use Statistics in a right way, then I think, stats can give us the quality. For eg. Let us see how Sachin and Lara probably the best of our times, has fared better against good bowlers of our times. Sachin Tendulkar Vs Player Matches Runs HS Bat. Ave. 100s GD Mcgrath 9 662 126 36.77 2 AA Donald 11 658 169 32.90 2 SM Pollock 12 834 169 39.71 2 SK Warne 12 1209 177 60.45 5 M Muralitharan 19 1216 143 48.64 5 C Vaas 11 908 148 53.41 5 W Akram 7 395 136 32.91 1 W Younus 4 278 136 39.71 1 S Bond 2 100 51 25.00 0

    Brian Lara Vs Player Matches Runs HS Bat. Ave. 100s GD Mcgrath 24 2041 226 46.38 6 AA Donald 10 681 83 34.05 0 SM Pollock 15 1245 202 42.93 2 SK Warne 20 1837 277 54.02 5 M Muralitharan 8 1125 221 86.53 5 C Vaas 8 1125 221 86.53 5 W Akram 7 394 96 30.30 0 W Younus 6 354 96 32.18 0 S Bond 4 237 83 39.50 0

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 7:10 GMT

    ZA77, I agree that statistics are not always the best yardstick. My argument is that the English bowlers in Bradman's era would have had greater impact had Bradman either not existed, or had he gotten out on average about 50 runs earlier than he usually did. For example, if Bradman had played for England, maybe O'Reilly, Ironmonger, Grimmett etc. would have had worse figures.

  • BillyCC on October 18, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    waspsting, I haven't heard that story, thanks. I am fairly sure that there are bowlers today who are very happy and overjoyed to get Sehwag and/or Gambhir out, only to see Dravid and Tendulkar next at the crease. I imagine this is what it was like for the bowler when Bradman came in to bat. And if you can imagine how Tendulkar's batting partners have benefited by batting with him over the years, then imagine the effect of Bradman's batting partners feeding off the relentless scoring and the draining of confidence from the opposition bowlers.

  • ZA77 on October 17, 2010, 21:06 GMT

    Dear BillyCC, yes statistic has their value but it is not the exact yardstick. I think we should talk about the impact of those bowlers in match instead of focusing on average. Why we said Grimmet and O Reilly are the best of those days because they have more impact on game as compare to others. In Bradman team no one was like him as he was better than them. But when we talk about Headley, he had comparsion with him like his average 71.23 against England as compare to him 89.78. Headley average against AUS was 37.33 and Sutcliff 66.85, almost double although both have same batting average but in real sense, Sutcliff had not get chance against English bowlers. Could we say, he was almost double better than Headley due to average and Headley was equal to Sir Don from quality point of veiw. Sutcliff proved himself against the prime attack of those days. For this reason, I think Sutcliff was the best of those days. Mailey, Grimmett, Reilly, Ironmonger, Wall, Kelleway and others.

  • waspsting on October 17, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    BillyCC - Neville Cardus told a story about being in the press box with Larwood during the 50/51 Ashes series. On a normal pitch, neither team could reach 200 in any of 4 completed innings. He noticed Larwood was brooding and asked him what was on his mind. Larwood replied, "look at them, getting out on this beautiful pitch", and then went silent again. after a few more minutes of silence, he spoke again. "you know, Mr Cardus, when I look back on my own test career, i seem to have spent all my time bowling at Bradman?" A cry from the heart, Cardus concluded

  • BillyCC on October 17, 2010, 1:13 GMT

    So if you take 1700 runs off Bradman, you have to take off more runs for the foregone potential partnerships. Let's say he outscored his partners 2 to 1, so you take off another 850 runs off the English bowling total, leaving an overall bowling average of 29. Also, by getting Bradman out earlier (and a number 3 batsman at that), you increase the likelihood of getting the whole team out for less runs, because it gives the opposition more confidence and a lift in spirits (many situations like this can be observed today). I haven't put a number to this factor, but it starts to show that maybe the English bowlers weren't so bad, it's just that Bradman was very very good. Happy to take comments so that my analysis can be improved.

  • BillyCC on October 17, 2010, 1:04 GMT

    I've tried to do some analysis following waspsting's comment: Bradman in particular, just made the english look bad. In their entire Test history, English bowlers have on average, averaged 32 with the ball (Statsguru). The contentious argument was that the bowling during the Bradman era was sub-standard. ZA77 points out that they didn't take many wickets and their averages were not great either. The golden age of English bowling was in the 1950s when the average bowling average was 24. Against Australia between 1928-1938 (Pre-war Bradman era), the English bowling average was 35 (approx 16000 runs vs 460 wickets). In this period, Bradman averaged 91, scoring 3840 runs in 46 innings with 4 not outs. So what if Bradman had a great but not extraordinary average eg. 50. You take off around 1700 runs and the English bowling average improves to 31. But the story doesn't end there. (to be cont'd)

  • ZA77 on October 16, 2010, 8:12 GMT

    Dear Waspsting, yes, Sir Don could play O Reilly but he played him in first class. Also conditions of Australia were not in favour of leg break bowlers as compare to England where conditions were in favour of O Reilly and Grimmett. Before 1932, Sutcliff average was 78.28 against prime attack of his era. It declined due to O Reilly emergance in cricket. See an example, a match in 13 January 1933, a timeless test match, both leg spinner (Grimmitt plus O Reilly) delivered more than 1300 balls in this match. It means you are facing more than 4 times overs of leg spinnners in one match as Shane Warne overs per match is 47 and Kumble 52 only. Another timeless match in 18 August 1934, both leg spinner delivered 1078 balls in this match (took 12 wickets in the same match and won the match) which is equal 180 overs of current cricket. It looks like you were facing almost 2 times Kumble and 2 Warne in one match. Leg spin + Googly + Flipper + Top spin, Sutcliff had to face all varities of them

  • ZA77 on October 16, 2010, 5:27 GMT

    First of all thank you for all of you who made this discussion interesting. Sir Don is one of the best on which no one has argue. Now in professional peer comparison is very close now. Just see Dravid runs per inning is 46.6 as compare to Tendulkar 50.85, so actual difference is only 4.25 but Dravid is proving himself at most crucial position that is no. 3. His AVERAGE at overseas is better than homeland is another advantage to him. I think he is blocker plus anchor in batting in his team like 81 times century partnership as he has ability to prolong inning in favour of his team. Multiply his 46.6 * 280 = 13050 runs as compare to Tendulkar 14240 but his innings per century 8.6 is not as better as Tendulkar has 5.7. So I think he is very close to Tendulkar.Else continent wise his average is 70 at America and in Europe 65.35, amazing! Dravid also has another advantage at least batting average 45 in all continents Asia 49.7, Africa 46.6 and Oceania 54.3.

  • waspsting on October 15, 2010, 17:43 GMT

    said you should just hook it. The only reason he could (and i doubt he faced too much of it in county cricket) was because he'd play back immediatly and square on, because the offstump good lenght ball wasn't a problem (he'd just pad it away). Also, Bradman caned O'Reilly in first class cricket in a way no one else did. I don't think theres much doubt he was the best of his time, even if inter-generational comparisons are over much. good talking to you,

  • waspsting on October 15, 2010, 17:38 GMT

    Bradman out did all the english players in their own first class season almost everytime, as well as in the australian seasons when England visited. Suthcliffe... well, he did good under the laws of the day (no LBs to anything pitching outside off stump), but he used the laws in a way guys like Bradman and Hobbs and Hammond didn't. Everyone - pace, spin, county, internationals - talk about how he'd shoulder arms to anything pitching outside off stump. he argued against the change of the LB law to his dying day, and wrote about how if it took place (before it did), inswingers and off breaks would be unplayable and centuries would be a rare thing. Bradman, among others, seemed to not be bothered by the change. but Suthcliffe's style and attitude suggests to me that he would have really struggled under the modern laws, where the quick ball outside off stump is the most dangerous of all. Suthcliffe was one of the few to defend bodyline (continued)

  • waspsting on October 15, 2010, 17:26 GMT

    i don't know about Sehwag and Yousuf. Sehwag is a match-winner of subcontinent... better than anyone in history. He scores a lot (averages), he scores very quickly. not Sachin or Viv Richards can match that combo. off the subcontinent, he's no pushover, but he's not consistent or big enough a scorer to be "great". Tendulkar is much better here. Yousuf's made the most of flat pakistan pitches and he's no pushover overseas either, without quite hitting Tendulkar, Sangakarra, Dravid levels of consistency for greatness. taking greatness to be ability in all conditions and against all kinds of bowlers, i don't consider either "great" - though they both have areas where they stand alone.

    I don't think the English bowlers were as far behind the Aussies as you make them out to be in 30s. check Aussie batting averages in english county seasons, or english players averages in australian seasons. Bradman in particular, just made the english look bad (continued)

  • ZA77 on October 15, 2010, 10:04 GMT

    Dear Waspsting, I think peer comparison is not exact parameter to judge batsmen of different era. If Lara is there then Tendulkar, Ponting, Inzamam and Dravid are also there. If all peers are strong then what could the best do. How much difference between Tendulkar and Dravid, you can understand. Bradman maintained batting average not against the best attack of his time. So all England batsmen had to suffer due to O Reilly, Grimmitt, Mailey, Gregory and IronMonger, Kallaway and others. See example of Sehwag few days back, his average was 50 against Australia and Yousuf against England was 70. On the basis of it, would you say that Yousuf is the better. Here you can understand that both played different teams in which Aus is better. Apply the same to Don and Sutcliff case in which he maintained 66.85 as compare to 89.78. It means any one could be better. We can only say Bradman is statistically the best ever and no one could reach at this average, if we make other things constant.

  • waspsting on October 15, 2010, 5:43 GMT

    @za77 - ok man, we'll agree to disagree. Bradman had worries as to how to make a living - he was an amateur. for the record, Bradman was not UNIVERSALLY regarded as the best of his time. old timers said Victor Trumper was better and some said Hobbs and Hammond were better. Stats aren't everything, but for my money, anyone with THAT MUCH a better record than his CONTEMPORARIES has to be better. 52 vs 55 can go either way, but 100 vs 55 can't. Tendulkar is the best player i've seen. as far as all time greatness goes, i rate Bradman higher and probably Sobers. One area in which Tendulkar suffers in comparison to them is his record relative to his rivals. There are several players not far from Tendulkar - Lara, ponting, dravid, kallis, yousuf, waugh and others. Bradman by contrast, was streets ahead of his rivals. and sobers too (kanhai and cowdrey were called greats - average way less than him, as percentages)

  • BillyCC on October 15, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    ZA77, fair enough. My opinion is that Lara was actually more suited to Number 4 than 3, and that is why he stayed at Number 4 for the majority of his career. I've also read your post to waspsting about the burdens of one-day cricket. Bear in mind though that all cricketers in Bradman's day had to work full-time + find time to train. This is a far bigger burden than playing one-day cricket.

  • ZA77 on October 14, 2010, 21:37 GMT

    Dear Waspsting, it is near to 100 but he maintained it when he was facing nine teams at a time plus burden of one day cricket too. If you see his exact burden of his cricket it is six to eight times more than Sir Don Bradman. Even if you count three one day burden eqaul to one test then it is equal to 300 - 325 test matches burden with taking pressure of nine teams at a time plus other teams which are in one day but not in test matches. When you see him, it looks like that two batsmen are there. One is only playing test matches only and scored more than 14000 runs and other in One day only and scored near to 18000 runs. See his records, highest runs maker in both versions with highest no. of centuries, 20 times 150 or plus scores, more than 10,000 runs with help of 50 or plus, more than 100 times 50 or plus scores, more than 7000 runs with the help of 100 or plus, only one with batting average more than 60 against Australia and England and so on.

  • ZA77 on October 14, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    Dear BillyCC, first you said to me to let me know your dream team then you are making own decisions on it, no problem at all. Lara maintained batting average more than 60 at no. 3 and scored two triple at this position. He totally scored three doubles at this position. Suppose Lara is not there then Sir Don would be there in my list. As I always said I respect him as a legend but still I believe he had limitations too. Like Steve Waugh we never say any inning of him as a master piece due to absence of style but Mark Waugh on the other hand had chance due to elegant batting although his average was less. Style means artist in batting like Victor Trumper, Archie Jackson and Alan Kippax. Style plus situation means Brian Lara, only complete man in history of cricket with each and everything with him like records, style, situation, ability to take pressure of main strikers, ability to play pace and spin like his complete domination on Murli, his ability continent-wise and so on.

  • BillyCC on October 14, 2010, 20:36 GMT

    ZA77, the Bradman comparison with Lara at No.3 is ridiculous. Lara played the majority of his career at No.4 (over 90 tests vs 40 tests at No.3), so if anything, you should be comparing Lara and Tendulkar. I haven't seen Hobbs play so I don't know how elegant he was. However, Bradman by all accounts had the second best strike rate ever in Test cricket behind Sehwag. So even if he was not elegant, he scored quickly.

  • Laxyvick on October 14, 2010, 20:03 GMT

    Why compare Bradman and Sachin? They are from two different eras. And in spite of all the stats given against Don, it is a fact that great batsmen of all eras averaged 55-60, from 20's to 2010's and Don is the only one who averages beyond all of them... an unusual 99.94 ... But that does not take anything away from Sachin's achievements ..enjoy ... http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html Celebrate Sachin for his genius. Let Don alone.

  • waspsting on October 14, 2010, 17:42 GMT

    @zxaar - how many runs has he scored against Bangladesh and Zimbabwae? 7000? Bradman, btw, averages 200 against South Africa and 178 against India. And by the way, No, he does not average 100 against the two combined. good day all,

  • ZA77 on October 14, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    Dear BillyCC, there is a big difference that you have to understand. Bradman comparsion at no. 3 is with Brian Lara. Even if Hobbs at no. 3, he would be listed out due to Brian Lara. Then even if you want to put Bradman at no. 4. Again he would listed out due to Tendulkar. Both are better batsmen than Sir Don Bradman. Else Hobbs is most elegant batsman too as compare to Sir Don without style. Any inning of him, is not master piece due to absence of style. Also he is not artist of batting as style totally absent. Why Sobers is necessary as it is stuck in grove that if there is dream team, Sobers should be included.

  • BillyCC on October 14, 2010, 6:40 GMT

    ZA77, interesting selections but the presence of Hobbs and not Bradman is flawed going by your thinking. If by all your arguments you are suggesting that the quality of bowlers that Bradman faced is poor, then Hobbs also would fall under the same category. For example, Hobbs did not face O'Reilly and he didn't face the best bowler of his time in Test cricket (Barnes). Had you included Bradman and Sobers in your team, you really would have a mighty imaginary team.

  • ZA77 on October 14, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    Dear Billy CC, it is also for you. 7. Six bowlers took 100 or more wickets in test matches which Sir Don BRADMAN faced, in which three came after World War II and one died during it. Tate (1924-35) took 32 wickets against Australia from 1928 to onward with bowling average 39.71. Wright (1938-51) took 108 wickets maintaining career bowling average 39.11 and Hedley Verity (1931-1939) took 144 and then in 1943 he died during World War 2. Actually he was an army officer. He took 21 wickets in Australia against them with bowling average 34.57 throughout his career. Alec Bedser (1946-1955) and Jim Laker (1948-59) came after World War 2 when he was finishing his career. Jim Laker took 9 wickets with bowling average 52.44 in only three test matches, which he faced against Bradman in 1948. Mankad (1946-1958-59) of India took 162 wickets in career with average 32.32. His average was 52.5 with grabbing 12 wickets in five test matches against Australian team in which Bradman played in1947-48.

  • ZA77 on October 14, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    Dear BillyCC, please find my own dream team although I believe it is only imaginary siutation or team. As an opener, Gavaskar and Hobbs, no. 3 Brian Lara no. 4 Tendulkar, no. 5 Viv Richard, no. 6 Imran Khan (Captain plus all rounder), no. 7 Dujon (Wicketer Keeper), no. 8 Shane Warne, no. 9 Wasim Akram, no. 10 Malcom Marshall and no. 11 Murli. I hope you will enjoy it. Dear Waspting, it is not good idea to compare Sir Don average of those days to recent performance of Tendulkar. Bradman runs per inning was 79.8 against England and Tendulkar 55.12 but he took England one out of nine and Bradman almost cricket against them. For those who argue not too much cirkcet, how Hammond played 85 test from 1927-1947. See example of Imran Khan and Sobers both played 88 and 93 test matches in almost same twenty years with enough wickets plus runs with them. See Lara his runs per inning at home versus England is 71.45 as compare to Don 71.33 but he took England one out of nine means he is also better

  • zxaar on October 14, 2010, 1:40 GMT

    @waspsting " what is Tendulkar's average against Bangladesh? Zimbabwae? Bangladesh and Zimbabwae? is it 99.94? "----------------- yep around it 136 and 77 so average out to around 100.

  • waspsting on October 13, 2010, 21:50 GMT

    @za77 - what is Tendulkar's average against Bangladesh? Zimbabwae? Bangladesh and Zimbabwae? is it 99.94?

  • BillyCC on October 13, 2010, 20:33 GMT

    ZA77, you may have missed my comments from the previous forum where we had a similar debate. Just wondering if you had a chance to respond, particularly interested in your All Time World XI.

  • GopinathR on October 13, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    Hi Guys, I am Gopi from Singapore ..when Sachin was batting on 3rd day , I was travelling in a train and checked the score on cricinfo using my mobile ..Couple of white guys peeped from behind me and they were so curious to know the score ..when i just looked back and smiled they one of the Guy an australian asked me is sachin still going strong , I said yes he is on 170 ...The other guy was from London and he was set to score first triple...they both said they dont care about the result , they want their cricketing hero to get first triple century......I just smiled and said a billlion people back home in India will also be hoping for the same..........then i couldnt sleep the whole night thniking about sachin , what magic he has created across the cricket fans..no matter which country all cricketing fans would like to see sachin score centuires :) Proud of sachin who makes carrys our nations pride on his shoulders everytime when comes to bat

  • ZA77 on October 13, 2010, 5:22 GMT

    Dear Ballonbat, interesting to see your comments that it is meaningless stats and waste of time by typing all. I spent more than ten hours to gather this knowledge of my own and you are saying it is meaningless. The best variations in bowling attacks is faced by Tendulkar. The best pace bowling faced by Gavaskar as he not only scored but proved best of those days. Why Sobers said he is no. 1, why not Don Bradman and others. Even someone asked Sobers said, he played another type of cricket. Sir Don is legend and one of the best but he faced weakest attacks in history. 43 bowlers took 100 or more in test history from England, he faced only five of them. For your knowledge, main thing is attack not bowlers like when Tedulkar faced Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain and Afridi at a time and scored 136 means two swing, one finger and one wrist spinner. It means any weakness cost him lost of wicket. All experts are accepted him that he has flawless batting technique.

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 20:57 GMT

    Dear Ballonbat, it is not typing all times as I HAVE my own formats, if Bradman was there then 4 Hs (Hobbs, Herbert, Headley and Hammond) were also there with same or more impact on cricket too. Headley batting average was 91.38 at home versus England before world war II as compare to Sir Don only 72.78 WITH SEVERAL TIMELESS MATCHES. Headley batting average was 37.33 against Australia and Herbert 66.85. It means his average was better than him against Australia. After 1932, Herbert average declined from 78.28 to 66.85 due to Bill O Reilly. He maintained average 66.85 with facing Mailey (Googly), Grimmett (Flipper Specialist) and O Reilly (Top spinner too). Hammond played only 58 innings against prime bowling of Australia out of 140 innings. Also Hammond had to face IronMonger too with bowling average 17.97 in entire his career. Also in Australia, due to timeless matches, they delivered 1000 or more balls in one match and in England conditions were in favor of wrist spinners.

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 20:46 GMT

    Dear Ballonbat, legend Don almost played or mostly played amateurs of England. On the basis of it, if you want to say he is best of the best, I think it is self assumption only. Again same old story, 100 average but against whom is not important. Had he faced verities like zooter of Warne, arm ball of Murli, flipper of Kumble, doosra of Saqlain, Googly of Kaneria. Mat over concrete pitches with 8 balls per over. 52 Test MATCHES in 20 years means very slow pace of cricket with almost timeless matches on home grounds. Also there was no concept of globalization and England and Australia have same culture so he was not facing different conditions like George Headley faced as he came from W. Indies. Total cricket in England and Australia only on ten grounds. No proper rule of LBW before 1934. Difficulty to face googly, bouncers and unable to play master inning on rain affected pitches. I think he is a legend and one of the best but not best of the best.

  • S.N.Singh on October 12, 2010, 18:50 GMT

    DID ANY ONE REMEMBER, A FEW YEARS AGO SACHIN SON TOLD HIM: "DAD WHEN YOU NEED FOUR MORE RUNS FOR HUNDRED, HIT A SIX." NOW SACHIN ON THIS OCCASION HE HAD TO DO IT TWICE ( 2-6'S). I KNOW SACHIN HAD TO PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME FOR INDIA. HE ALWAYS PLAY FOR INDIA AND NOT FOR HIMSELF. IF IT WAS A FASTER WICKET, HE WOULD HAVE SCORED FASTER. HE HAS ADDOPTED HIMSELF ON ALL OCCASIONS FOR INDIA. EVERY ONE LOVE HIM APART FROM THE TEAM HE PLAYED AGAINST, FOR THAT MOMENT ONLY. I THINK DHONI IS ALSO A GREAT BATSMAN AND THINK DHONI SHOULD ALWAY BAT AT # 5 THIS WILL ALOW INDIA TO ACCUMULATE MORE RUN. THEY HAVE A TOUGH TASK TOMORROW. S.N.SINGH

  • ultrasnow on October 12, 2010, 17:46 GMT

    @LaxisGreat

    What do you mean 'Sachin is a man of flesh and blood'. Spidey is also a man of flesh and blood !! Difference is spidey has this spider sense whereas Sachin has common sense. Please don't make this a Spidey v Sachin issue!!! By the time Sachin retires Spidey IV will be out, so Spidey holds the edge overall...

  • ultrasnow on October 12, 2010, 17:07 GMT

    @ TimmyF_23 I too am a great spidey fan. But don't get Sachin into it. Sachin is way greater than both SpiderMan and BranMan!!!

  • Yorker_ToeCrusher on October 12, 2010, 17:03 GMT

    Fellow Indians,Cool down a bit..Just sit back and enjoy HIS batting.

  • ram5160 on October 12, 2010, 16:23 GMT

    Reading the comments section of any tendulkar article is becoming a pain.

  • py0alb on October 12, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    Actually he's been dismissed 249 times in Test matches. Not sure where you got the 140 from...

  • LaxisGreat on October 12, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    @sonjjay Hit the nail on the head ... when Sachin performs, India win so smoothly that no one remembers that it was a winning innings in the face of crisis

  • LaxisGreat on October 12, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    @TimmyF_23 : I agree ZA77 has gone overboard, but you must realise that unlike Spiderman, Sachin is a man of flesh and blood, and for a developing nation like India, he is the the symbol of emerging greatness ... Sachin scoring a century is more important to many of the Indians than a successful business deal or an increment. Read http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html if you want to know how much he means to an Indian fan.

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    Larwood was an ordinary bowler. His average without bodyline series was near to 35 and against Australia more than 40. Without bodyline series he took only 45 wickets. Verity was also an ordinary bowler as his stirking rate was 113.1 in Australia, in New Zealand 156 and South Africa 119.2. It means his impact was low in other regions. Also he was only regular bowler faced by Sir Don as career of both of them started near to same. Bedser was good but he faced him after world war II when even Bedser did not know what would be his future. Only player faced by Sir Don as an opponent in most matches was Hammond in 31 test matches. He was also part time bowler too. Bradman faced Bowes in six matches only. Jim Laker was their but he played only three test matches agains him. Main thing is attack, not bowler like Tendulkar faced at a time Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee means slider, skkidder, zooter, googly, flipper plus swing plus seam too means any weakness cost him lost of wicket.

  • ballonbat on October 12, 2010, 13:20 GMT

    ZA77 What a waste of time typing up all those fairly meaningless stats. Of course Walsh and Wasim are going to have far more wickets than Larwood or Laker - they played far more games. There are simply far more Tests played in the modern era. One stat does have meaning: the batting average of the Don. He had an average of almost 100 in 80 Test innings and one of 95 in 338 first class innings. No one else comes close. More importantly he and Tendulkar have both played a fine game of cricket - both geniuses with the bat, astute players, beautiful batsmen to watch, ethical players, etc. Both have brought pleasure to millions of cricket lovers and what more can one ask.

  • TimmyF_23 on October 12, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    Personally i find it quite sad (and a little disturbing), that all of you indian fans know Tendulkar's life so well that you know what sachin ate for breakfast every day in 1998! The fact the your entire happiness for the week is determined by his success/failure is a little sad, live your own lives! Its alright to have a hero, but most normal people dont live their lives through that person (mine is spiderman, he is one cool dude!). You guys make it unbareable to enjoy this site as all you do is talk about him. Chill. As for the article, yes his awsome, amazing, brilliant, the best!. To know this we do not need to know how many bowlers his faced, who they were and all his stats. We know that simply by watchin him over the years and the fact he is the leading run scorer!! So just relax guys, its not a competition of who knows him the best!

  • Laxyvick on October 12, 2010, 11:45 GMT

    @ ZA77 ... The number of wickets are bloated because of many more matches played and oppositions like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Larwood, Verity, Bowes, Bedser were as good as any bowler Sachin has played against ... and while sachin has played against Zim and Bang, Don also played against weak attacks of India and WI of his day. But, all these do not take away the fact that both these batsmen were the greatest of their times. Laxman, Dravid both are great batsmen, but I would put Sachin way ahead of them because of the consistency and longevity. http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/pull-of-laxman.html and http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html are two excellent articles about the heroes of Indian middle order without vilifying anyone ...

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 10:58 GMT

    I do not know why some people want a domination of Sir Don over Tendulkar. Still they are doing same things. How Sir Don scored 101 centuries, I am unable to understand even if he is not leading century scorer in his own country. He is leading runs maker no. 10 at his own country and overall at no. 39 and they are simply multiplying the figures. These are only imaginary thing in which they believe. For Sir. Bradman, category wise leading bowlers in histroy as per follow. 1. For leading 38 fast bowlers, Don faced none. 2. For leading 47 fast medium, he faced none. 3. For leading 6 medium fast , he faced one.4. For leading 5 medium, he faced one. 5. For leading 41 off break / slow left arm orthodox, he faced three of them. 6. For leading 14 leg break he faced one.

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 9:46 GMT

    Tendulkar faced totally 57 bowlers with 100 or more wickets in test matches. Fast + Fast Medium + Off break + Leg Break 18 + 22 + 11 + 6 = 57 For Fast Bowling, he faced 18 bowlers Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Ambrose, Ntini, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Lee, Macdermott, Gillespie, Flintoff, Hughes, Styen, Johnson, Shoiab, Bishop and Malcom. For Fast Medium bowling, he faced 22 bowlers Mcgrath, Pollock, Vaas, Kallis, Hoggard, Caddick, Harmison, Carins, Streaks, Martin, Fraser, Morrison, Nel, Dillion, Anderson, Cork, Defreites, Kasprowic, Reifel, Reid, Collin and Razzaq For Off Spinner / Slow left arm orthodox eleven Murli, Vettori, Saqlain, Emburrrey, Panesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hooper, Bracewell, Boje and Rafique For Leg Break / Slow left arm Chinaman Warne, Kaneria, Qadir, Macgill, Mushtaq, Adams. I think he faced all types like best wrist spinners Warne and Murli, best left arm swing Wasim (Sultan) most difficult Ambrose, Best African Donald and Pollock, consistent like Walsh and McGrath and more.

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    I think Tendulkar faced the best verities of bowlers which are as follow, countrywise for 100 or more wickets in test. 9+ 12 + 13 + 8 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 1= 57. Nine from Pakistan Imrran, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Kaneria, Qadir, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed and Razzaq. Twelve from Australia Warne, McGrath, Lee, Gillespie, Macdermott,Gillespie, Hughes, MacGill, Johnson, Kasprowic, Reifel, Reid Thirteen from England Flintoff, Malcom, Hoggard, Caddick,Harmison, Fraser, Anderson, Cork, Defreites, Emburrrey, Panesar, Giles and Tufnell. Eight from Africa. Ntini, Donald, Styen, Pollock, Kallis, Nel, Boje and Adams. Five from New Zealand Hadlee, Vettori, Carins, Morrison and Bracewell. Six from W. Indies Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Dillion, Collin and Hooper. From Sri Lanka two and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe one each Murli, Vaas, Rafique and Streak. He played on 57 different grounds. For those who arguing he is unable to score against big teams, only one with batting average near to 60 against Aus.

  • sonofchennai on October 12, 2010, 8:35 GMT

    guys don crib abt sachin's greatness..there is no harm to concede a fact Sachin is great...leave all the statistics, ths guy has played around 1300 days of international cricket + first class + t20 + IPL and all others...whihc comes around 5 years out of his 37 years...God, he is blessed...and for heaven's sake pls don crib & compare when there is something nice writen abt him...I really don understand what more he has to do...and good comment by Jim

  • Santhosh3186 on October 12, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    Hey Sambit... Hope you correct this and upload the content again "Always knowing where the bal *l is is * one of the vital features of Tendulkar's greatness. "

  • Navillus on October 12, 2010, 8:17 GMT

    @vish2020 : Go easy on Vice Captain ... by average he was speaking of the average number of centuries ... and if Don had played 279 innings, if we use the unitary method, he would have 101 hundreds ... However, playing for a long long while and staying at the top is something that is the biggest asset of Tendulkar ... and I don't know about the Don, but other greats have had a much less time at the peak ... eg. mohammed Yousuf and Ricky Ponting ... they had their bried period of greatness and then settled to the very good, while Tendulkar goes on and on as great for more than 20 years witha three year tennis elbow caused hiccup. http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html In this article the longevity is summed up adequately.

  • sonjjay on October 12, 2010, 7:47 GMT

    You wont see too many critics now. India were in a iffy position with 2 quick wickets down and had it not been for his partnership with Vijay India would have been in doldrums the fact is that when sachin plays,a cirsis is averted so none of his knocks are palyed during a crisis,his knocks avoid a crisis...

  • ZA77 on October 12, 2010, 6:42 GMT

    Now we can say that Tendulkar is better than others including Ponting, Dravid and also Laxman too. His comparison with Sir Don Bradman is not possible. Reason is that top five fast bowlers faced by Sir Don are Gubby Allen 82, Larwood 78, Ken Farnes 60, Constaintine 58 and Charlie Griffith 44. Fast Medium Voce 98, Bowes 68, White 49, Bell 48 and Geary 46 Leg Break Wright 108, Walter Robbin 64, Peebles 45, Hollies 44 and Macmillan 36 and Off Break / SLAO Laker 193, Mankad 152, Verity 144, Vincent 84 and Woolley 83. In Tendulkar case Walsh 519, Hadlee 431, Wasim 414, Ambroze 405, Ntini 390. Fast Medium McGrath 563, Pollock 421, Vaas 355, Kallis 261 and Hoggard 248. Leg Break Warne 708, Kaneria 261, Qadir 236, MacGill 208, Mushtaq 185 Off Break / SLAO Murli 800, Vettori 325, Saqlain 208, Emburrey 147 and Panesar 126. See the difference between bowling faced by two legends from different eras so accept both legends with capablity to prove themselves.

  • Sudhakar86 on October 12, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Bradman was the best batman of his age.Batting under pressure for the only time when people were waiting for him to get an avg of 100 he got out for a duck. But in Sachin's era pressure creates to the team only when he gets out. Till then he carries his own pressure which is very immense to satisfy the whole nation and he is successful for 21 years with a hectic schedule.

    Don't compare a man who played 52 tests in 20 years with one who played 171* tests and 445+ ODIs

    Sachin if u like comparing eras will be the undisputed King even GOD of all eras!

  • CurtlyAmbrose on October 12, 2010, 5:36 GMT

    sachin is the greatest batsman that I ever had the privilege of bowling to. i would like to remind everyone that even the drug-propelled, ball-tampering fast bowlers of pakistan could never master the master. I agree with some of us here that Don batting in this era would have an average closer to what Sachin has.

  • manasvi_lingam on October 12, 2010, 5:09 GMT

    @Patrick - You may want to check Tendulkar's stats in the 90's. And don't tell me that people like Headley and Gavaskar faced more expectations. The total West Indies at that time had less population than Mumbai alone, and even Gavaskar never expectations. And to put things in perspective, 90's was one of the best decades for bowlers: Akram, Waqar, Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McDermott, McGrath, Gillespe, Lee, Akhtar, Srinath, Gough, Caddick, etc were among the pace bowlers and then there were Warne, McGill, Kumble, Saqlain, Mushtaq, Vettori, Murali, etc among the spinners. Sachin has the highest average of any batsman who played in the 90's even higher than people like Gooch who only played part of the 90s. He did beter than Lara, Ponting, Kalis, Inzamam, etc. In fact, Ponting is the one who has benefited the most from the decline in bowling standards

  • hamz501 on October 12, 2010, 4:40 GMT

    I am big a Tendulkar fan as the next guy, but he hasnt played outside the sub continent this year. Yah its still a great run hes had, but we all know that these pitches are a batsman's dream. Regardless, looking like an Indian victory or draw.

  • meetkamals on October 12, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    @Koushik_Biswas nice explanation with good example..

  • kapilesh23 on October 12, 2010, 4:13 GMT

    now one more article on sachin .many people around the world has problem why there are so many articles written on sachin .i think yesterday he gave the reason why ,so i think now the people who don't like articles written on sachin would understood and stop all there logical reasoning and enjoy the articles written on him .

  • allforone on October 12, 2010, 4:11 GMT

    "Sachin Tendulker - the most loved cricketer". This is so obviously true. Of course the best cricketer of the most populous cricketing nation would be the most loved cricketer of all time, just as Ricky Ponting would be the most hated cricketer of all time because he captained the most successful team in the modern era and belongs to a nation of relatively low population, and a population too that has so much more to give it's love to than a single man.

  • Runster1 on October 12, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    Y do Aussies always put tendulkar below Bradman? Bradman played only 50 tests and wudnt not have been able to accomplish wat sachin has today if he was playing today. Today, oppositions analyse your weaknesses with various technologies and there is a lot more strategy and tactics now. Sachin shud either be placed beside bradman or above him....

  • psubs84 on October 12, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    Guys...i got to say something here,when u considering his batting Ave it shows he is peaking up now but the reason behind sachin's recent batting Ave i guess is there is no good bowler to dominate sachin.Most of the World class bowlers have retired so this could be one of the main reason .Like Ponting also had the same kind of situation if u look at Ponting Ave agist Ambro,Walsh,Akran,kumle it isi terrible once they retired then he started to peak up.i feel sorry for lara bcoz the amount of pressure he felt was huge compare to what Ponting or sachin does.he played most of his inning as a single man.I rate Lara is best amongst all of them.And bradman's ave shld have gone down if plays in modern cricket.

  • BillyCC on October 12, 2010, 3:13 GMT

    Rotten Eggs, totally agree with you. He would smack anyone with that big bat of his if anyone dared to suggest it in an inappropriate way. And Navillus, agree with your assessment on Vice Captain's analysis.

  • thebrownie on October 12, 2010, 3:09 GMT

    Gosh, not another one. I am getting bored of article on Sachin and Laxman. As much as enjoy watching them bat, Laxman's was a very good innings which deserved a couple of articles, and Sachin's is fairly routine one against a very ordinary bowling attack. It was not once in a blue moon innings like Sehwag's 293. Although that innings was against a bowling attack having just one world class bowler, it is not often someone can score at that rate. Talk about laxman's 281 as many times as you like. That was a once in a lifetime innings. I am loving Sachin's recent form, though he is not as exciting as he used to be, but this worshiping is overboard.

  • AmareshM on October 12, 2010, 3:00 GMT

    A true master-class of an innings. His perennial appetite for runs, his simplicity, his exacting work ethic is an embodiment of relentless pursuit of perfection.

    Cricket would not have been the same without Sachin Tendulkar.

  • FiddyHolt on October 12, 2010, 2:54 GMT

    @vish2020: he was working out how many 100's they would have hit, not batting av.

    @Koushik_Biswas: I don't agree that this theory applies to the unmatchable Don. He still maintained an average of 95+ in 234 first class matches and played up until 2 weeks shy of his 40th birthday. The 2nd World War robbed him of many more appearances which I'm sure would've shown his average to remain as strong.

    That all said, Tendulkar is an absolute master of the game and one of the all-time greats. He is hands down the greatest of the modern era.

  • waspsting on October 12, 2010, 2:52 GMT

    he was talking about the number of centuries each player would make in the number of innings, not average. smart response

    here we go again with Bradman. can't you just enjoy Tendulkar's greatness without this? and if you want to bring up longevity, why don't you look at their first class records - is 300 odd innings from Bradman long enough to judge? he only had a measly average of 95 in those

  • Koushik_Biswas on October 12, 2010, 1:33 GMT

    Spot on Navillus about Vice-Captain. You do not have to look far for other sports equivalents of your logic and Vice-Captain's fallacy: Usain Bolt runs 100 meters in less than 10 seconds: can he run 5 kilometers at that speed? The average run rate in 20-20 is 8.0. Can we have such run rate in 50 overs match? Everything changes with scale - not only in sports, but everywhere else too. Policies that work great in USA won't work in China or India due to the sheer size of the population. In software, programs that seem flawless when 10 people are using it crash on their faces if everybody in the world were to log into it. Bradman has a great average because he played much less than modern cricketers. He is still one of the best - but peaking of pure numbers, his average would have come down if he had, say, played 100 more innings - and that is normal. That is human. That is logical. There is no disrespect meant, neither is it belittling.

  • waspsting on October 12, 2010, 1:00 GMT

    great article. the records that Tendulkar has the potential to finish on is staggering. its usually the brilliant talented players who start young and its the ones with super correct technique that last late. Tendulkar is both! and he started one of the youngest ever. Fitness permitting, with his technique, he can potentially play another four years or so. Imagine how many runs and hundreds he might finish with! BTW, it was Hooper who ran out Lara for 277, not richardson.

  • sairek11 on October 12, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    very good article Mr.Sambit....Sachin himself has indicated the importance and value of singles when he gave reasons for not preferring a runner. He simply said what Sambit has said above....only the batsman will know what strength he has put into the shot and how long it would take to reach the fielder. Hats off to the genius who continues to amaze and astound us with every innings he plays. Truly older the wine the better it is.

  • Jim1207 on October 12, 2010, 0:43 GMT

    One wonderful fact about Sachin was that he uses a by-runner only in very worst situations. If he had been in VVS's place last week, he would have ran himself and might have got out like he did against Pakistan in Chennai. People say that Sachin could not finish off that game but they forget to see that he ran himself with so much pain than what VVS experienced in first test. This is not to discredit VVS but it is the fact and greatness of Sachin. And, it was so worse seeing people's hate comments on Sachin when Laxman finished off the game for India but all these guys enjoy each other's success as their own and that's the reason all the batting legends formed a successful and strong batting order instead of fighting over each other's preferences and desires. Each of them could have exchanged any of their slots and Ganguly could have been easily called as a legend but they sacrificed so much for each other. Its time for fans to respect their friendship and stop spreading hate messages.

  • vish2020 on October 12, 2010, 0:13 GMT

    @Vice-Captain...your response is truly idiotic! You made up all the numbers for all the batsmen if they play 279 innings as many as Sachin have so far. Okay that's stupid of you but what is truly idiotic is you gave sachin an average of 49 when his real average is 56!! I think I would go with stat gurus of cricinfo..and by the way, bradman would never have average of 101 with 279 innings..it would be more like 50. And mind you, less than sachin!!

  • cricket_fan_1980 on October 11, 2010, 23:37 GMT

    Tendulkar is simply sensational. The cricinfo write up on Don Bradman starts, unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game. "Unquestionably?" I would question that. Yes he has an immense average, but he has 52 tests vs Sachin's 170+. He played his cricket in either England or Australia primarily. Sachin has played everywhere. Sachin has excelled against a diversity of bowlers that the Don would never have even imagined. Some types of bowling weren't even practised at the Don's time, doosra's, googly's, reverse-swing, and several diverse variations. Sachin has played in an era when fielding is an art, not an afterthought. Sachin has nearly 50 test hundreds. 50! and nearly 100 international hundreds! He is a certainly a batsman who I would consider as being "greater" than the Don. In my eyes, Sachin is the greatest batsman of all time. Sachin, your fans in Pakistan (my home country) support you. You are a true hero and inspiration.

  • PatrickJM on October 11, 2010, 23:17 GMT

    While I can appreciate the skill of Tendulkar, his achievements really need a bit of perspective. For a start, as was pointed out on the comms, his recent resurgence has followed a dearth in fast bowling - the WI in their pomp could select between 10-15 bowlers with a lower F/C average than the 2nd top bowler in the world M Johnson. Secondly, he has a few good batsmen to go with him (Azhar, Ganguly, Laxman, Dravid, Sehwag) He might be imbued with a nation's hopes, but such hopes are nowhere near as those shouldered by Headley, Richards, Border or Gavasker Furthermore, India have won nothing with SRT's batting bar ascension to the No. 1 spot following the retirement of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and the subsequent decline of Australian and world-wide cricket.

    Batsmen are all well and good, but it is bowler's who make the game. Give me an over of Aamer over a century by Tendulkar anyday.

  • MasterClass on October 11, 2010, 23:13 GMT

    The Don had the luxury of playing mostly in England and Australia, with just a handful of matches in India, WI and SA against pretty mediocre sides. While the pitches were uncovered, the bowling, fielding and tactics (except for bodyline) were of a less demanding era when sport was enjoyed for sport. It is my humble opinion that the Master and the Don would compare favorably if they were contemporaries, either now or then.

  • tanveers on October 11, 2010, 22:43 GMT

    There is no doubt that Sachin Tendulkar is one of the greatest batsman ever. One thing that puts Tendulkar apart from others is that he can mold his game to a situation; he is a mastermind. He can get under the sleeves of his opponent by changing his batting style in a single inning - just like he did today. As he has aged, he has matured. He is no blaster anymore but he is rock solid in all cricketing batting skills. But one thing I want to request others is that, please stop comparing him with Bradman. In-numerous times in the past we have compared him with Lara and Ponting and now I have started seeing people put him above Bradman. Bradman was Bradman - a great batsman of a different era. We can not compare apple with oranges. Let's just appreciate Cricket - what a wonderful game.

  • Rotten_Eggs on October 11, 2010, 22:16 GMT

    I am fan of Sachin too. Please stop embarrassing Sachin by starting an argument that anybody can be better than Bradman. If you go tell Sachin that he is better bastman than Bradman, he will first smack you then will tell you to stop embarrassing him and your self.

  • CricketPissek on October 11, 2010, 21:49 GMT

    very good point Mr Bal. the man has so many talents, people can easily miss out on the less block buster ones. his incredible knack of judging the singles well is probably he is CONSISTENT as well as well great. Arjuna Ranatunga was one of the most consistent batsmen in test and ODI history, many observers might not believe it, but the stats back it up. The reason was because he was an AMAZING judge of the single. Ranatuna obviously is not in the same league as Tendulkar, but they do share that characteristic. Sachin's place in history is reserved, let's just enjoy watching the master play. With help from analysts such as Sambit, we can probably try to appreciate more dimensions of his play along the way.

  • Nadeem1976 on October 11, 2010, 21:29 GMT

    The time sachin has spent on the field, bradman would have died after spending that much time in international cricket. I dont think any body in the world can acheive what sachin has acheived. Do not forget the only thing Bradman has better than Sachin is Avg. But if you combine and ODI and Test average of Sachin its better than Bradman. So full stop, Sachin is greatest batsman of all time and no further comments.

  • BillyCC on October 11, 2010, 21:00 GMT

    A fantastic innings by a great batsman. Tendulkar has shown us all that it is possible to play at a very high level with control, skill and technique even at an age nearing 40. I wonder where all those critics are from last week who were turning their back on Tendulkar.

  • Navillus on October 11, 2010, 21:00 GMT

    @Vice Captain : That is using the unitary method ... Sachin's hallmark is longevity ... not everyone can sustain brilliance over that long a period... Here in the article the guy says that he has not known adult life without Sachin at the wicket. I tend to agree.

    http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html

  • Vice-Captain on October 11, 2010, 20:51 GMT

    If all the top batsmen were to play the same number of innings as Sachin (i.e. 279) -- the list would be (1) Bradman 101.1, (2) Sachin 49, (3) Hayden 45.5, (4) Gavaskar 44.3, (5) Pointing 43.5, (6) Jayawardene 41.8, (7) Kallis 41.2, (8) Lara 40.9, (9) Waugh 34.3, (10) Dravid 32.6.

  • GREENBUCKS on October 11, 2010, 20:38 GMT

    Sachin the genius has all records imaginable, I do understand playing to the circumstances and not to the galleries but i still like the old Sachin which blasted all bowling. Ever since the advent of Sehwag, Sachin has slowed down his strike rate so much. Sachin has become more of a stabilizer then the blaster. Match winner he still is no doubt about that but the blaster in master blaster is missing...we are proud that Sachin is on our side...

  • Navillus on October 11, 2010, 20:26 GMT

    Good analysis. I personally would like the cherry of a 300 on the phenomenal numbers. Let me point you to another great article on Sachin http://senantixtwentytwoyards.blogspot.com/2010/10/nation-walks-with-sachin.html

    I also dread the day when he will hang up his boots

  • chuck.of.all.trades on October 11, 2010, 20:19 GMT

    What a superb article, Sambit. I loved that last line.

  • Rohit-Gore on October 11, 2010, 20:08 GMT

    Pete Sampras was admired all over the world for his astonishing service and for having perhaps the best net game ever. But I bet his most favourite shot must've been the running forehand. It was his most trusted weapon, and he would unfurl it with regularity. It wasn't the most talked about shot, but it must've been his most productive. Everyone talks about some of the most improbable and magical goals that Zinedine Zidane scored in his lifetime. But I believe he would be most proud of his little passes that set up goals for Henry and Vieira. And I think, Sachin would be proudest of all the innumerable singles he accumulated in the last 20 years. I think that's the hallmark of the greats. I think only they truly understand the importance of a humble single, a short pass or a forehand return.

  • Tijara on October 11, 2010, 19:39 GMT

    What struck me today was that Tendulkar was not having any cramps! Most other younger batsmen start having cramps after scoring 150 runs! And Tendulkar batted the day before as well!

  • chrisvasan on October 11, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    Watching Sachin bat today takes my mind back to the inings Brian Lara played at Sydney scoring 277. Australia tried and tested all their ammunition, but failed. Eventually he was run out, more on account of Richie richardson's fault. I was reading the Sportstar issue that followed. It read `Run out for the justice that could be done to the dismissal of Lara, because no bowler worth his salt could have dismissed him on his day'. Same thing holds good for Sachin today.

  • manasvi_lingam on October 11, 2010, 19:30 GMT

    @ DrAlexKuruvila - The knighthood can be conferred only on those people whose nations recognize the Queen of the United Kingdom as Head of the State - such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most countries of the West Indies, etc. India does not do that and hence one cannot expect a knighthood. Even if an "honourary" knighthood is given, I believe that the rule is that Sachin will not be allowed the use of the "Sir" before his name.

  • Htc-Baseball on October 11, 2010, 19:12 GMT

    Its getting a kind of routine actually.Everytime the master enters the field he s getting more determined to score,it appears beyond human everything he does and being so humble..He s a role model for every person who strives for success-not oly in cricket...thank u Sir Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar

  • sportsismylife on October 11, 2010, 19:02 GMT

    The only phenomenon that does not change is change itself ................ and Tendulkar

  • krajeev on October 11, 2010, 18:52 GMT

    Hopefully Sachin gets his first triple this time. Needs one in his bag prizes. Anyways India need to bat most of the 4th day. Will the remaining batters support him?

  • Dr.AlexKuruvila on October 11, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    I have keenly followed cricket from 1956 from when I was seven, and have been lucky to see many great players in action, like Gary Sobers, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Geoff Boycott, Ted Dexter, Peter May, G. Vishwanath, S. Gavaskar, Greg Chapel, Ricky Ponting, Haneef Mohammed (and the list goes on). In my opinion, Sachin Tendulkar by far is the most complete batsman and with the best technique among these legends. Bradman was before my time and may be, just may be, he was the only other player who can be compared to Sachin. No wonder Bradman recognized Sachin's talent and personally lauded him before his death. I pray that Sachin too is honored with the knighthood one of these days. Sir Sachin Tendulkar has a nice ring to it!!

  • svinodmenon on October 11, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    Tendulkar is the best example for the future players in any format of the game. You cannot get him out when he plays with full confidence. That's how he practice. At 37 any team in the world would like to have him in any format. The better the best Don Bradman, Coz Tendulkar has played more and more matches and still is a worry for any opponent.

  • BMayuresh on October 11, 2010, 18:27 GMT

    Agreed, but don't forget that the Wall even makes SRT perspire and is better off when it comes to collecting 1s & 2s. No doubt Dravid in early part of his carrier had a reputation of getting his partners run out but as always has corrected that error too.

  • gpbhat on October 11, 2010, 18:23 GMT

    The only reason why Tendulkar has not yet been a part of a world cup winning team is because, time and again, the team has failed to support him. I hope that the Indian team supports Sachin in what may be his last effort in 2011. And this time, as in many instances before, he is ready and raring to go.....

  • Nampally on October 11, 2010, 18:15 GMT

    That was a masterly innings from Sachin. His strike rate is typically around 55 in a test match and close to 80 in ODI. He knew that he has to hold one end up while the batsmen at the other end can play their natural game. This must have frustrated the Aussies on a wicket which was not overly friendly to pace bowling. The ball is taking turn but it required a spinner of much higher calibre than Hauritz to bother Sachin. On the fourth day all fans like to see Sachin getting not only his double but triple century which will be his first. That is the only record this little master has not accomplished in the tests compared to Don Bradman who got 334 as his highest and that too with centuries in each of the three sessions of play. If Sachin can get a triple century it will be an additional feather in his already glory filled career. Hopefully India and Tendulkar play out the third day and take a 200+ run lead to bowl the Aussies out on the final day. Good Luck Sachin & India.

  • Sreerang on October 11, 2010, 18:03 GMT

    No doubt that Tendulkar is in a zone this year and he is playing percentage cricket, using all his experience to minimize risks & scoring max. He never looked like getting out since yesterday & also in the first test till he actually got out. But I still miss the Tendulkar of yore where he really dominated the bowlers. That was something else altogether.

  • SanketGandhare on October 11, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    sachin u God,genius,greatest batsman in the world,most spirited cricketer,most lovable ever please make a 400 tomorrow and break lara's record of 400 runs(play in 20-20 mode)......Go Tendlya go

  • manasvi_lingam on October 11, 2010, 17:45 GMT

    If Tendulkar doesn't get out and the tail and Dhoni give him support he can easily get to his 250. Today's knock was as always exceedingly brilliant. He was compact, he was risk free and he was aggressive. He combined defence, the quick single, the crisp boundaries and the occasional big hit.

  • ram5160 on October 11, 2010, 17:43 GMT

    Sachin was perfect today. But what really sets him apart is his extraordinary talent which is after all god-given. On days like this, I sometimes agree with Imran Khan when he said Tendulkar has not made full use of his talent. But I suppose that's what makes cricket such an interesting game. I still believe some one can break his records provided that guy can last for 180 test matches. After all, the average is within reach.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • ram5160 on October 11, 2010, 17:43 GMT

    Sachin was perfect today. But what really sets him apart is his extraordinary talent which is after all god-given. On days like this, I sometimes agree with Imran Khan when he said Tendulkar has not made full use of his talent. But I suppose that's what makes cricket such an interesting game. I still believe some one can break his records provided that guy can last for 180 test matches. After all, the average is within reach.

  • manasvi_lingam on October 11, 2010, 17:45 GMT

    If Tendulkar doesn't get out and the tail and Dhoni give him support he can easily get to his 250. Today's knock was as always exceedingly brilliant. He was compact, he was risk free and he was aggressive. He combined defence, the quick single, the crisp boundaries and the occasional big hit.

  • SanketGandhare on October 11, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    sachin u God,genius,greatest batsman in the world,most spirited cricketer,most lovable ever please make a 400 tomorrow and break lara's record of 400 runs(play in 20-20 mode)......Go Tendlya go

  • Sreerang on October 11, 2010, 18:03 GMT

    No doubt that Tendulkar is in a zone this year and he is playing percentage cricket, using all his experience to minimize risks & scoring max. He never looked like getting out since yesterday & also in the first test till he actually got out. But I still miss the Tendulkar of yore where he really dominated the bowlers. That was something else altogether.

  • Nampally on October 11, 2010, 18:15 GMT

    That was a masterly innings from Sachin. His strike rate is typically around 55 in a test match and close to 80 in ODI. He knew that he has to hold one end up while the batsmen at the other end can play their natural game. This must have frustrated the Aussies on a wicket which was not overly friendly to pace bowling. The ball is taking turn but it required a spinner of much higher calibre than Hauritz to bother Sachin. On the fourth day all fans like to see Sachin getting not only his double but triple century which will be his first. That is the only record this little master has not accomplished in the tests compared to Don Bradman who got 334 as his highest and that too with centuries in each of the three sessions of play. If Sachin can get a triple century it will be an additional feather in his already glory filled career. Hopefully India and Tendulkar play out the third day and take a 200+ run lead to bowl the Aussies out on the final day. Good Luck Sachin & India.

  • gpbhat on October 11, 2010, 18:23 GMT

    The only reason why Tendulkar has not yet been a part of a world cup winning team is because, time and again, the team has failed to support him. I hope that the Indian team supports Sachin in what may be his last effort in 2011. And this time, as in many instances before, he is ready and raring to go.....

  • BMayuresh on October 11, 2010, 18:27 GMT

    Agreed, but don't forget that the Wall even makes SRT perspire and is better off when it comes to collecting 1s & 2s. No doubt Dravid in early part of his carrier had a reputation of getting his partners run out but as always has corrected that error too.

  • svinodmenon on October 11, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    Tendulkar is the best example for the future players in any format of the game. You cannot get him out when he plays with full confidence. That's how he practice. At 37 any team in the world would like to have him in any format. The better the best Don Bradman, Coz Tendulkar has played more and more matches and still is a worry for any opponent.

  • Dr.AlexKuruvila on October 11, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    I have keenly followed cricket from 1956 from when I was seven, and have been lucky to see many great players in action, like Gary Sobers, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Geoff Boycott, Ted Dexter, Peter May, G. Vishwanath, S. Gavaskar, Greg Chapel, Ricky Ponting, Haneef Mohammed (and the list goes on). In my opinion, Sachin Tendulkar by far is the most complete batsman and with the best technique among these legends. Bradman was before my time and may be, just may be, he was the only other player who can be compared to Sachin. No wonder Bradman recognized Sachin's talent and personally lauded him before his death. I pray that Sachin too is honored with the knighthood one of these days. Sir Sachin Tendulkar has a nice ring to it!!

  • krajeev on October 11, 2010, 18:52 GMT

    Hopefully Sachin gets his first triple this time. Needs one in his bag prizes. Anyways India need to bat most of the 4th day. Will the remaining batters support him?