Sachin lost a great opportunity to set a great precendence by denying to play IPL, retired after WC final. I think he earned enough money to have done that. His legacy would have been great. Also, he carried his Mumbai team as non-playing captain though he didn\\\'t play dur to injury. Where was that enthusiasm when he had to return from England last summer. I think now he is \\\"one\\\" of those other cricketer. I lost the respect in that aspect. True, he is still a great batsman to watch - that\\\'s all.
I think Sachin is under performer by overall careers perspective. I think, as a batsman, he is notches above Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Lara etc.. He should have made 20000 and 100 centuries in tests alone, if has just played cricket and not focussed on earning money. He has only 2000 run above these guys but played 7 years more than them. if Kallis or Dravid plays for 200 tests, they will be making 17000 runs as well. So, what\\\'s the big deal in 50 centuries or 16000 runs? That doesn\\\'t make a true legand. Another example, Cook made 19 centuries in 4 or 5 years. He can make 60 centuries in next 10 years..
So, he is a good batsman to watch whether he makes 20 runs or 100 runs, not outstanding or a great performer compared to other batsman. Very well under performer considering his capabilities, in my opinion.
Sachin lost a great opportunity to set a great precendence by denying to play IPL, retired after WC final. I think he earned enough money to have done that. His legacy would have been great. Also, he carried his Mumbai team as non-playing captain though he didn't play dur to injury. Where was that enthusiasm when he had to return from England last summer. I think now he is "one" of those other cricketer. I lost the respect in that aspect. True, he is still a great batsman to watch - that's all.
I think Sachin is under performer by overall careers perspective. I think, as a batsman, he is notches above Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Lara etc.. He should have made 20000 and 100 centuries in tests alone, if has just played cricket and not focussed on earning money. He has only 2000 run above these guys but played 7 years more than them. if Kallis or Dravid plays for 200 tests, they will be making 17000 runs as well. So, what's the big deal in 50 centuries or 16000 runs? That doesn't make a true legand. Another example, Cook made 19 centuries in 4 or 5 years. He can make 60 centuries in next 10 years..
So, he is a good batsman to watch whether he makes 20 runs or 100 runs, not outstanding or a great performer compared to other batsman. Very well under performer considering his capabilities, in my opinion.
Re: Sachin
by cc man on Jan 21, 2012 10:19 PM
Glad that your voicing in the correct way. Another important point especially I want to make it is "whats the use of he playing still when he cant stand and deliver stellar innings consistently when needed considering his 22yrs of cricket". If he cant deliver consistently especially when team needs him, there is no point in he playing cricket still"
Re: Sachin
by cc man on Jan 21, 2012 10:20 PM
Glad that your voicing in the correct way. Another important point especially I want to make it is "whats the use of he playing still when he cant stand and deliver stellar innings consistently when needed considering his 22yrs of cricket". If he cant deliver consistently especially when team needs him, there is no point in he playing cricket still"
Re: Sachin
by Mahesh Joshi on Jan 22, 2012 12:45 AM
You are correct. But in history of cricket no one has so far played only one game for such a long time of 22 years. He could play because of his hunger for cricket or you can say for money. This require guts. There are many cricket playing countries and this game has a history of more than 200 years. if this is happening first time about any player it means their some thing special. No one can say or challenge that this record if made will not be broken. Who restrained others from making runs or centuries or giving great performances. Lets be part of this record first then we will be interested to see who break it first. I am sure there are many who will be interested in breaking it.
Re: Re: Sachin
by raku on Jan 22, 2012 06:38 AM
There were others played cricket longer than him, true there was not much cricket all through the year then. Forutunately for him and unfortunately for the Indian cricket team, he was able to pick and chose the matches because of his reputations. There is no doubt he deserves that, and he performs whenever he is playing. However, that is simply affecting the team composition and current/future plans. Just here is an example, doent' Rahane needs to get going in One-dayers? what value Sachin adding to the Indian cricket team? is he going to win us every match he plays? probably he may be more consitent than Rahane, but i think he miss a once-a-life-time opportunity to retire after world cup dream final. Nothing else matters now. In fact, he can still say that world cup final was his last one-day and he is dropping out of AUS tri-series, he will win the respects of millions of his critics.
Sachin lost a great opportunity to set a great precendence by denying to play IPL, retired after WC final. I think he earned enough money to have done that. His legacy would have been great. Also, he carried his Mumbai team as non-playing captain though he didn't play dur to injury. Where was that enthusiasm when he had to return from England last summer. I think now he is "one" of those other cricketer. I lost the respect in that aspect. True, he is still a great batsman to watch - that's all.
I think Sachin is under performer by overall careers perspective. I think, as a batsman, he is notches above Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Lara etc.. He should have made 20000 and 100 centuries in tests alone, if has just played cricket and not focussed on earning money. He has only 2000 run above these guys but played 7 years more than them. if Kallis or Dravid plays for 200 tests, they will be making 17000 runs as well. So, what's the big deal in 50 centuries or 16000 runs? That doesn't make a true legand. Another example, Cook made 19 centuries in 4 or 5 years. He can make 60 centuries in next 10 years..
So, he is a good batsman to watch whether he makes 20 runs or 100 runs, not outstanding or a great performer compared to other batsman. Very well under performer considering his capabilities, in my opinion.
After the Australian tour, I believe it is the right time for many cricketers including Sachin Tendulkar to hang his boots. It is high time we groom youngsters instead of giving 100's of opportunities to Sachin, Rahul Dravid, V.V. Laxman, etc. Even Dhoni should be asked to take a long vacation from Test cricket, but not from IPL because most IPL matches are fixed like WWF.
What is this game of cricket played among 10 nations, out of which 6 r presumably third world nations...
Also whether the commercial business aka cricket survives or not is in the hands of we Indian fans.... Supposing if we choose to ignore this game, board revenue would start declining, advertising will come down, channels would shy away from buying rights for astronomical prices, players would not be paid the kind of money that they get these days... and most importantly the foolish media will find it worthless to spend countless hours arguing and counter arguing and making demi gods out of mere mortals.... Net result: ppl will slowly but surely prefer some other sports...
I think its high time India turn their attention away from this colonial game towards many other sports where we have ample talent to excel at world level... eg:- badminton, chess, table tennis, squash and a host of other olympic track n field events......
But we r living in a world where everyone fears change and the political lobby does not wish to give up cricket that churns huge sums of money without India being really good at it.
Re: Cricket won't last
by Srinivasan Ramiah on Jan 21, 2012 09:50 PM
You are right. Instead of making people like Sharad Pawar, BCCI Chairman Srinivasan and the Cricketers shabbily rich in very Quick time, we can do something more Constructive. Especially after the pathetic show in Australia and England.
Re: Cricket won't last
by IDforDiscussion on Jan 21, 2012 10:12 PM
You are right I thought the same way but you are missing points.1. Cricket is not famous only in city and clubs.2. Individuals and Team performance are cleraly visible in cricket not in other Team Games.
Cricket can be seen everywhere even in village. Boys just arrange a ball and local made bat and start play in some ground. Now think about the games you mentioned . Those are indoor games. Yes we have talent but those cannot be popular as cricket. Football/Hockey are option but those are mostly team game.
Re: Cricket won't last
by IDforDiscussion on Jan 21, 2012 10:15 PM
You are right I thought the same way but you are missing points.1. Cricket is not famous only in city and clubs.2. Individuals and Team performance are cleraly visible in cricket not in other Team Games.
Cricket can be seen everywhere even in village. Boys just arrange a ball and local made bat and start play in some ground. Now think about the games you mentioned . Those are indoor games. Yes we have talent but those cannot be popular as cricket. Football/Hockey are option but those are mostly team game.
Re: Tendulkar
by Vandana Chiniwalla on Jan 21, 2012 09:46 PM
if he played for money then he would have retired by 2003-2004. He has more money than your 1000 fathers would make in their lifetime
