Tag Archives: sachin tendulkar

Stunning Stat of the Day

Posted on by

Since Alastair Nathan Cook became captain, these are his one-day statistics:

10 innings, 2 not out

538 runs at a strike rate of 97.28

67.25 average with a HS of 119

1 hundred and 4 fifties

Compare that to an average of 30.52 at a strike rate of 68.15 when he was not the captain. Looks like Cook is taking captaincy duties pretty seriously!

On a different note, there has been some talk about comparing Cook and Tendulkar, especially since Cook has been making so many runs in the recent past. Here is where they stood after 72 Tests (i.e., the number of Tests that Cook has played)

  • Cook: 5868 runs at 49.72 with 19 centuries, 26 fifties and a HS of 294
  • Tendulkar: 5673 runs at 56.16 with 21 centuries, 22 fifties and a HS of 217

Cook played his 72nd Test at 26 years and 7 months. Tendulkar played his 72nd Test at (drumroll) 26 years and 7 months. Their stats are very close in terms of runs and centuries. But Tendulkar is way ahead on the batting average. Unless Cook can continue to make huge scores in the next few seasons, he will be nowhere near Tendulkar on that account. Note that Tendulkar’s current average is 56.25.

Manufactured Controversy About Sachin Tendulkar’s Batting Position

Posted on by

So the latest controversy doing the rounds is why Sachin Tendulkar cannot open the batting when one of the openers is not doing well. Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman are flexible about their batting positions. Rahul opening and Laxman at No.3. Is Tendulkar such a big shot that he cannot change his position?

In this opinion, this controversy is unadulterated stupidity and perhaps even cynical mischief as it tries to create dissension within the Indian team. Let us look at the facts why this is a needless distraction:

Dravid has opened 23 times in 17 Tests and has made 4 centuries and 1 fifty. Obviously he has come in several times when one of the openers has gone without scoring (which was twice in the last Test). Laxman has opened 25 times in 16 Tests with one century (the 167 against Australia in Sydney). He has also played at #3 position in 23 Tests with 4 centuries, including that 281 against Australia in Kolkata. In contrast, Sachin has only played above #4 in one Test making 15 runs.

So who has more experience playing as opener? And who has more experience at #3? Should we or shouldn’t be asking people to use their experience at a particular spot instead of experimenting when India is staring at a 4-0 loss? Also question for people – if Tendulkar does not bat at #4, then who will take that position? Isn’t he the person with the most experience at that spot?

Also in this series, this is what happened when Dravid and Laxman batted at #2 and #3:

  • 1st Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (36), Laxman (56) and a partnership of 75 runs.
  • 2nd Test, 1st innings: Dravid (117), Laxman (54). Partnership 93 runs
  • 2nd Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (6), Laxman (4). No partnership
  • 3rd Test: – usual batting positions – India lose by innings and 242 runs
  • 4th Test, 1st innings: Dravid (146*), Laxman (2). Partnership 5 runs
  • 4th Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (13), Laxman (24). No partnership

In 5 tries, Dravid and Laxman have made a good score twice, made a start once and failed twice. Not a bad record. In fact, if we just take the first two times they went up the order, they were very successful. Why wouldn’t the Indian team continue with that? Why experiment?

Quiz Question about Sachin Tendulkar

Posted on by

How many Test matches did it take after Sachin Tendulkar made his debut for him to reach and consistently maintain a batting average of 50+?

(Just to be clear, he did reach 50 once, but then fell below 50. So the question is after which match did he never go below a 50 average)

The answer surprised me. See the link here.

Sachin Tendulkar first crossed an average of 50 after his 29th match in 1994, about four years after he made his debut. But he slipped below 50 a couple of years later.

He has been able to maintain a 50+ average only after his 53rd Test. A full seven years after his debut.

Sachin also had a below-40 average until his 23rd Test. He has been a late bloomer.

Cricket Player Value for Money

Posted on by

I hope to carve out enough time to work on Ducking Beamer’s request to analyze whether an IPL player was worth the money the team paid for him, but before the quantitative analysis, let us take a quick qualitative look at this question. This might be over-complicating it, but here we go.

The basic problem which plagues every team sport is how to measure the value of an individual’s contribution. This is not as easy as counting hundreds or five-for’s. Consider Bangladesh and Australia in the Test Arena. Bangladesh loses almost all their matches by plenty to spare. Australia (until recently) won most of their matches comfortably. A team like England in the same period won some, lost some and drew some, with many matches that could have gone either way. Now, imagine a player, Batto (for lack of a better word!) playing for each team (work with me here!) and maintaining a 50+ average with several centuries and fifties.

Batto’s contribution to the Bangladeshi team is immense, as you can imagine. His contribution to the Australian team is not so much as there are many players contributing well during the same period. In the English team, his contribution is very significant. So what is his value? I would posit that Batto’s value to both the Bangladeshi and the Australian teams is low while that to the English team approaches a very high number. Why would I say that? Because the important thing is how much a person’s contribution matters to the end results.

For all of our Batto’s contribution to the Bangladeshi team, he has rarely helped them win any match. You could also take out Batto from the Australian team and he wouldn’t be missed much. But remove him from the England team and suddenly wins turn to draws and draw-able matches end in defeats. England should be paying a high price for Batto.

This perhaps explains (to some extent) the surprising love-hate affair many Indians have with Sachin Tendulkar in Tests. Yes, he is revered as a “God”, but it is a strange God indeed who is criticized anytime he fails to deliver a significant score. I think this is because there are very few matches where Sachin has made the difference between winning and losing. There have been winning matches where Sachin has made huge scores, but so have other batsmen. There have been matches that have been lost (like against Pakistan in 1999) where Sachin stood alone above the wreckage. This is not the implication that Sachin is a fair-weather batsman, but rather when he performs well despite his team members, the team still fails to win the match or loses.

Contrast this with Anil Kumble during the same period when he and Sachin were in the same team. In the early period, when India won matches, usually Kumble dominated the bowling charts. Sachin shared glory with Azharuddin, Sidhu, Kambli and then later Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag and Ganguly. India rarely won matches abroad and so hardly of Sachin’s contributions resulted in any benefit for India. On the other hand, when Kumble suddenly discovered the art of taking wickets overseas, India started winning abroad.

But wait, that’s not all. To go back to our example, removing Batto from the Bangladesh team would not make much difference to their results. After all, they are already losing everything! But that doesn’t mean Bangladesh should go ahead and just recruit anyone who can swing a bat. The obvious reason being that there are worse fish that can be thrown away (mixing my metaphors a bit). But also because there is a second important element, which is “growth of the team”, which is, is the team showing a consistent improvement in results.

For example, if Bangladesh lost all 15 Test matches in Year 1, then won one in Year 2, then went up to 3 wins in Year 3, then the team is on an upward trajectory. Even though the value of the star player is still low, removing him will disrupt the improvement. Also, other players (in or out of the team) are inspired by the star player and would likely help improve the team. Sachin Tendulkar is the classic example, inspiring millions of Indians and minting at least one copycat (initially!) superstar player in Sehwag. Mohammed Ashraful a lesser example, but you now know why he was in the team for much longer than he deserved.

With Australia also, you cannot be too cavalier with resources. The problem is that winning tends to be a habit and sports is as much mind as talent. The more you win, the more you intimidate your opposition even before you set foot on the ground. So, while losing a match once in a blue moon is not a big deal with respect to the statistical record, it can be a powerful signaling device to other teams that the fortress can be breached.

What all this means in summary is that the results of the team should be paramount. An individual’s heavy contribution (without team results) does matter to some extent and therefore they should be compensated for individual performances. But a significant part of a player’s compensation should be based on team performance. I assume (without doing any research) this is true of nation-level teams like India and Australia. Countries with more competitive teams get more matches and individuals are thus compensated more.

But in the IPL, as I understand it, every team has a cap on their  budget. (Not a knock on the IPL, other sports also have similar setups). So you could have a team losing almost everything (as Deccan in the first IPL) and paying the same as the winner (Rajasthan). In fact, if I remember correctly, Rajasthan actually had the lowest budget of all the teams and some of the Pakistani players never got to play another IPL. That is harsh injustice.

In a perfect world, a huge pot of money would be set apart to pay the winning teams. For example, say, all the teams can only use 30% of their budget to pay at the beginning of the season. 14 matches -> 5% for each match. If you win the match, each player who played in the match gets a bite off the 5%. If they lose, they only get maybe 2.5% only.

The important thing is match contribution and team success. If you play well, only then you get selected for the next match and get paid. Otherwise you sit out and if you don’t come back, you could lose up to 50% of your salary. If you perform well and your team loses, you could lose up to 35% of your salary over the whole season.

And The Compaq Cup Winner is … R Premadasa Stadium

Posted on by

As expected, the team that won the toss put up a big score and won the match. OK, I will be the first one to admit that I got a bit antsy when the Sri Lankans kept up with the run rate for a long time, but overtaking 319 was always going to be tough and especially on a ground that has such a bias against batting second. Good effort by Sri Lanka to get close to the target, but no cigar.

One thing I noted about the Sri Lankan chase was the promotion of Thushara and Mathews above more specialist batsmen. I wonder if the Sri Lankan strategy was to push the run rate way up and then allow the orthodox batsmen to grind their way to victory. Kandamby and Kapugedera seemed to be trying that, but the problem is that in an ODI, it is really tough unless one of the batsmen can accelerate at will. They also should have taken the batting powerplay a few overs earlier.

In any case, it is amazing that the ICC and the cricket boards have let this farce go on. Every single team winning the toss in this tournament elected to bat. Too bad for the Kiwis that they don’t know how to bat. But can you imagine any sport where the outcome is decided the moment the toss is won or lost? Can you imagine the outcry? Yet for a week, we have been treated to this nonsensical spectacle without anybody speaking out.

Back to cricket, we were treated to yet another century from Sachin Tendulkar. Only 14 more to go for a century of international centuries. I wonder if anyone will ever come close to his record. Even though they are playing much more cricket these days, I cannot think of anyone who could keep going for decades like this.

Is Sachin Tendulkar Selfish Near Century?

Posted on by

In my previous post on Sachin Tendulkar, I mentioned how his first ODI century was an innings of two halves – the first fifty coming up in blistering fashion and the other slow in comparison. The second part was inexplicable because it seemed like Tendulkar decided to cut out his strokes and play it safe to get his century. This was undoubtedly true of his first century because he had gone dozens of innings without one and so he had to crack that barrier.

What struck me was that in many other innings, especially in Tests, I have seen Tendulkar behave like this. He would be playing perfectly normal, making strokes and dominating the bowlers. But as he approached his century, he would retreat into a shell, start defending playable balls and take singles off hittable balls. Quite often, he would even get himself in a pickle as the bowler starts beating him.

But when you have watched so many Tendulkar hundreds, the problem is whether a few such centuries remains in your mind and you forget all the centuries he made while belting the bowlers. For example, if I am correct, he once reached 100 in a Test match with three consecutive fours. So it could be a selective memory from my part.

Tifosi Guy suggested to take all of Tendulkar’s ODI centuries and check the below-80 strike rate and the 80-to-100 strike rate. So I went to Cricinfo and tried to find the data. Unfortunately, the ball-by-ball scores are only available for 15 matches. Also, sometimes we won’t get an exact 80-to-100 either, because he may have reached the 80′s via a boundary.

Anyway, the data is inconclusive, though there is some evidence of Tendulkar slowing down. In 6 of the 15 innings (40%), Tendulkar had a slower strike rate between 80 and 100 than his strike rate to reach 80. The worst example was his taking 30 balls to reach 100 from 80, when he had previously hit 80 from 87 balls.

On the other hand, he has moved very quickly too at times, hitting 15 runs from 9 balls, 19 from 13, 17 from 13 and so on. Except for that 20 from 30, he has scored the runs at a 80+ strike rate, even if they are sometimes slower than what he was going at. In most of these examples, India’s cause is not harmed.

Forgetting Sachin Tendulkar’s ODI History

Posted on by

Kartikeya Date writes in an otherwise good post (emphasis mine):

Comparing Gilchrist and Tendulkar is instructive, because they were different types of ODI opener. Gilchrist, in theory, did not bear the burden of shouldering his teams innings to the extent that Tendulkar did. Gilchrist did not open the batting because he was the best batsman in the Australian side. Tendulkar did it because of a simple reason – he was the best batsman in the Indian side, and so it made sense for India to have him face as many of the 50 overs as possible. This argument has not changed much over 15 years, even though the later batting has definitely been superior in this decade. Given this role, Tendulkar has more than met the targets set for him by the Indian side. As has Gilchrist for Australia.

This is a misreading of Tendulkar’s ODI career. Many people looking at Tendulkar’s 16000+ runs and 43 tons in one-dayers forget how average his initial ODI career was. Tendulkar, for a long time, was a much better/accomplished Test player than an ODI batsman. The nadir came during the 5-nation 1993 Hero Cup when Sachin Tendulkar was in the worst ODI form of his life and there were calls for axing him from the team.

Going into the 1993 final match against the West Indies, the non-performing Kapil Dev was also in a similar spot. And it came out that India was reduced to 161/5 (after three successive wickets for no runs) bringing Kapil to join Tendulkar. They staged a mini-recovery and allowed India to post 225, a reasonable score in those days, with Tendulkar remaining not out on 28 from 43 (yes, those were the days!) Kapil then returned back to take two early wickets and Kumble posted his record 6/12 as the Windies were bundled out for 123. I remember how that partnership helped protect both Sachin and Kapil from being tossed out immediately. I suppose if India had lost the final, maybe the selectors may have looked closely at the team composition. But when you win, you don’t change the team – Everybody knows that!

In those days, Tendulkar batted at No. 4 and was getting demoted because of his poor form. In contrast, Vinod Kambli was the toast of the hour. Anyway, fast forward a bit. Sachin makes a sole fifty against Sri Lanka in the next ODI series. He was in great form in the Tests which India won 3-0 (all by an innings), so his Test place was never in danger. But whether he deserved a spot in the ODI team remained a question.

And then the New Zealand tour that changed everything. In the second match, New Zealand were all out for 142. Tendulkar was promoted as the opener for the chase. He was promoted because the Indian opener in the previous match, Sidhu, was injured because of a neck strain. Tendulkar made 82 from 49 balls with 15 fours and 2 sixes, i.e, 72 out of 82 runs came from hits that crossed the boundary. This was a sensational innings and everyone who watched it were stunned by the audacity. Tendulkar continued his good form into the next few matches and so established his spot at the top of the order.

Now, remember Tendulkar was not the legend that he is today. A few months later, Tendulkar made his first ODI century against Australia and was criticized for playing slow. I saw that innings and it was excruciating. Tendulkar raced to his fifty in no time (probably faster than run-a-ball) and then made his century off 130 balls. He really wanted to get his century and slowed down to ensure that he didn’t take any risks. If I remember correctly, even Azharuddin, then captain, criticized Tendulkar. India won the match, so Tendulkar escaped without damage.

Tendulkar then made 3 ducks and an 8 in succession, made a century, then managed enough consistency and finally enough big scores to seemingly ensure no questions would be raised again about his spot. But the questions would come again in a different form, which many would be familiar with. The problem was that Tendulkar was performing so well up the order that the team depended upon him heavily for victories.

If Tendulkar went early, India invariably lost. India needed Tendulkar to hold the innings together. One obvious answer was for Tendulkar to play lower down the order (i.e., NOT face 50 overs) so that his dismissal didn’t mean the end of the game. So there were quite a few matches where Tendulkar did bat down the order. And it didn’t quite work out. Tendulkar was back at the top and this time, he would be there for a long time.

In short, Tendulkar’s opening spot was more of an accident [Sidhu's injury, small score, chasing, not much risk] than a strategic decision. Even with his explosive batting, his position at the top was not an universal guarantee, even and especially when he hit that slow first hundred. India had many make-shift openers during the 90′s (Mongia, Prabhakar) and Tendulkar was someone who happened to be successful. His success created a second problem when India failed to win matches without him and so people actually wanted him to bat down the order, which for various reasons, did not last for long.

And that is the way, my friends, history went.

Tendulkar’s 42 Test Centuries

Posted on by

Tendulkar hit another marvellous century to lead India to victory against the Kiwis. This was his 42nd century in 157 matches, more than one every 4 matches. This tally includes four double-centuries, with an unbeaten 248 being his highest score. With this 43 ODI tons, Tendulkar is just 15 short of 100 international centuries.

Let us take a look at Tendulkar’s centuries. He has made the most centuries against Australia (10) with 7 centuries against Sri Lanka. Against the rest, he has made 3-4 centuries each, with Pakistan bringing up the rear with 2 centuries. The Pakistan count is not a surprise as India has played very few Tests against Pakistan during Tendulkar’s career. With the Mumbai attacks, he is unlikely to play many/any and increase his record against them.

centuries

Tendulkar’s best year was 1999 when he scored 5 centuries against four countries. His drought years were 1991, 1995, 2003 and 2006.

centuries-by-year

Chennai has been Tendulkar’s favorite ground with 5 centuries followed by Nagpur with 4. He has also hit 4 centuries in Colombo, but at different grounds. Tendulkar also has 3 centuries in Sydney, although no one of them resulted in an Indian victory.

Most of Tendulkar’s centuries have been relatively sedate ones. 24 of his centuries have been made without a single six. The maximum he has hit has been 4 sixes in his unbeaten 155 against Australia in Chennai, 1998. Only twice has he went past a strike rate of 80 while hitting a century. The most 4′s Tendulkar has hit is 35 in that unbeaten 248.

How many more centuries could Tendulkar make? On an average (mean, median and mode), Tendulkar is most likely to hit two centuries per year. If we eliminate the out-of-form years, Tendulkar is likely to make between 2-3 centuries. If Tendulkar retires after the 2011 World Cup, he is likely to hit around 5 to 7 tons. An upper limit (based on his best years) would be 10 centuries. I would assume that if Tendulkar is close to his 5oth century, he will stay back to complete that unique record, probably foregoing playing in the ODI team.

Will Ponting Overtake Tendulkar?

Posted on by

Teams fight against each other to win Test and ODI series, but there are other competitions going on, especially in the individual record space. One of these is who will remain on the Mount Everest of cricket, i.e., who will score the most runs and most 100s. Currently, Tendulkar leads both charts with almost 12.5 K runs and 41 centuries. Here is a table of his nearest active competition and how younger they are when compared to Tendulkar.

Current Player Tests Runs Avg 100s Less Tendulkar
Tendulkar 157 12499 54.58 41 -
Ponting 131 10948 56.43 37 1y 8m
Dravid 132 10575 52.35 26 4m OLDER
Kallis 131 10175 54.41 30 2y 6m
Chanderpaul 119 8502 50.01 21 1y 4m
Jayawardene 102 8251 53.23 25 4 yrs

Ponting, Dravid and Kallis are within striking distance of Tendulkar (surprisingly, they have played almost the exact number of Tests). We can eliminate Dravid as he is 4 months older than Tendulkar and presumably will retire earlier. He will also play the same number of matches as Tendulkar, unless Tendulkar has a sustained poor run of form and is dropped while Dravid keeps playing. At this moment, that does not seem very likely. Apart from form, the Board will have to deal with angry public opinion if Tendulkar is ever dropped. Not gonna happen!

Ponting and Kallis have roughly the same shot at overtaking Tendulkar. If  they all retire at the same age as Tendulkar retires, they will have 1.6 and 2.5 years respectively to overtake his total which would be around 2000 runs more. In fact, they may have more time because if they are really close to Tendulkar, they may stick around for a year or so longer. If they maintain their current average, they would need roughly 20-25 Tests to overtake Tendulkar. Last year, the big teams played 12-15 Tests. So it is definitely achievable.

So the main questions are: Will Ponting and Kallis maintain their batting towards the end of their career, or will they have a sudden end like Hayden? Both of them have fallen from their previous near-60 averages and are nowhere near hitting the 1000 runs per year they used to. Ponting has more room here, because a winning Australia will help him retain his place on the basis of captaincy. With the victory in SA, he is back at the top again. Kallis has only his batting form to fall back upon.

The success of Twenty20 may disrupt some of these calculations. More international T20 and ODI matches mean less time for Tests. Nowadays, Test series are down from 5 and 6 Test series to 2 and 3 Test series. IPL and other local T20 tournaments can reduce the incentive of players to continue playing Tests. Injuries are more problematic at older ages. Here, Ponting is worse off. Being the captain, he is forced to be active in all the three forms of the game, whereas Kallis could end his ODI commitment earlier. Tendulkar has already quit T20 and only plays some of India’s ODI matches – he may be saving himself for Tests and one last World Cup.

That being said, last year proves that teams can play several Tests in one year. Australia and South Africa are popular teams and, like the popular kids in school, get to play with every one. Both Ponting and Kallis are exceptionally talented and can raise their game, and their cricket boards will accommodate their desire to hit a target more than other players. In any case, Ponting has a real chance of catching up to Tendulkar’s century count. He is just 4 behind. Unless Tendulkar has a spectacular year, that record is Ponting’s for the taking.

Chanderpaul, too, can be eliminated. He is too far behind, even if he has been racking up huge scores and crossed the 50-barrier recently. It is surprising that he has even scored so many runs after playing so low down the order. Jayawardene is another story. 4 years to hit 4000 runs. Possible, especially with Sri Lanka’s schedule leading them to more matches with the low-ranked Test teams. Whether Jayawardene’s appetite will be enough is a bigger question. Resigning the captaincy after the India defeat showed that he does not have the stomach for handling adversity.

How Cricket Injuries Shape Results

Posted on by

Australia have batted South Africa out of the match and series after the 3rd day and it would take an innings of Hanif Mohammed proportions from a South African batsman to save the day. Not only does the current form of the Australian bowlers rule that out, the South Africans have to do it with their captain out of the running and their foremost batsman probably still under the mental strain of being hit on the jaw.

What a damb squib this series has turned out to be. I am reminded of the Ashes 5-0 whitewash that followed the 1995 classic series in England. Or how the Australians steamrolled past every team in the last World Cup after losing to England in the tri-series and drubbed 3-0 by New Zealand. When you mess with the Australians, heaven help you. They come back and they come back strong.

The story behind this series has been the injuries that has made the Australian comeback possible, though not in ways that they anticipated. Brett Lee and Stuart Clark, both fearsome bowlers, were out of the running for this series. But their replacements have been more than competent, punishing the SA team. It is embarrassing how deep the Australian talent pool is, and how ashamed the Australian Cricket Board should be to have thrown away the last series by keeping non-performers like Hayden around, when they could have had Hughes. 

For the SA team, injuries have been disasters. Smith’s injuries prevent him from leading the effort against pumped up Australian debutants out to prove themselves. Without Smith’s leadership (and undoubtedly, he has more of that than Ricky Ponting), the South Africans seem lost. Kallis has not been great against Australia, but something is always better than nothing, and although he came back from retired hurt, he didn’t last too long.

The West Indies almost had a disaster today losing Gayle to an injury, but the new-look West Indian team is intense and knows how to last out there. Once again, they crossed 100 overs and look good for another century of overs. If and when they overhaul the England score, they will have completed the biggest upset in recent times, and set up England to look forward to another miserable Ashes against a rejuvenated Australia.

Finally, we cannot ignore Sachin’s injury when he was very close to making the first double-century in ODIs. Given how 300 is an average score nowadays and how regularly teams cross 350, the day is not far away for someone. It would have been sweet justice to have Sachin Tendulkar cross that magic figure, just as he should get his first triple century before he retires. Maybe some other day.