Time Magazine's quote on Sachin

 "When Sachin Tendulkar travelled to Pakistan to face one of the finest bowling attacks ever assembled in cricket, Michael Schumacher was yet to race a F1 car, Lance Armstrong had never been to the Tour de France, Diego Maradona was still the captain of a world champion Argentina team, Pete Sampras had never won a Grand Slam. When Tendulkar embarked on a glorious career taming Imran and company, Roger Federer was a name unheard of; Lionel Messi was in his nappies, Usain Bolt was an unknown kid in the Jamaican backwaters. The Berlin Wall was still intact, USSR was one big, big country, Dr Manmohan Singh was yet to "open" the Nehruvian economy. It seems while Time was having his toll on every individual on the face of this planet, he excused one man. Time stands frozen in front of Sachin Tendulkar. We have had champions, we have had legends, but we have never had another Sachin Tendulkar and we never will."

Justice In Cricket

After watching 200 runs barrier crossed by the most deserved person walking on planet this statement seems to be verified .

THERE IS JUSTICE IN CRICKET TOO.

 If at all someone deserved it ,it was the mumbai maestro.But now this double century has opened up another debate that was rather  not expected even 3 days before ,the debate on the big question:-

Is Sachin better than Bradman.

well i might sound childish but thats not my views ,the people round the world are saying that.

One debate that is over for sure is whether sachin is better or ponting(it was over for me long time ago but now the idiots who searches reasons to attack sachin's greatness will be quiet too)

Just get back to history and see how it unfolds .The previlege to get the highest score against your name is rightly given to the prolific batsman of that era be it Test or ODI's

This can be seen in the following list:-

Batsman with highest individual scores in ODI (progressive):-

Name              Score    Balls       Date

GM Turner        171*     201     07 Jun 1975     

N Kapil Dev      175*     138     18 Jun 1983    

IVA Richards    189*     170     31 May 1984    

Saeed Anwar    194       146     21 May 1997    

CK Coventry     194*     156     16 Aug 2009    

SR Tendulkar    200*    147      24 Feb 2010    

Batsman with highest individual scores in Tests (progressive):-

   Name             Score    Balls        Date

DG Bradman     334       448      11 Jul 1930     

WR Hammond  336*       -         31 Mar 1933    

L Hutton             364      847        -  Aug 1938    

GS Sobers         365*       -          26 Feb 1958    

BC Lara             375      538       16 Apr 1994    

ML Hayden       380       437       09 Oct 2003    

BC Lara             400*     582       10 Apr 2004     

In ODI just look at the quality of batsman..The prestigious gift was bestowed upon the batsman like kapil dev and sir viv. richards both of them dont need any introduction.

Sir viv. in my views is the best ODI batsman (some might disagree) but still facts proves that.

Next in the list comes the gread pakistani ODI run machine saeed anwar who held the record for an eternity.

But the real justice was done twice once when sir viv got it and now when sir sachin got it.

Moving to test , its even better stats

starting from sir Donald ,then passing to Sir Garfield sobers  then to carribien champion Lara.

Make no mistake about it that every single person present is a great test batsman  be it hutton ,hammond or hayden.

But in my views the highest score is just a gift ,a one day glory and doesnot reflect in any way the true greatness of a batsman .Its the cricket justice which presents this gift to desired players.

Just imagine the four of the modern top five batsman doesnot have a tripple century against their  name.

These gentleman's are

Ponting ,Dravid ,Sachin and Kallis .Lara being the only one to have it.

Poor Kallis doesn't even have a double.

I think this arguement is enough to prove highest score doesnot depict anything.

Its the career average and runs that is true reflection of a batsman's skill.

Still we believe  in justice and it will be more than appropriate for this great player (Sachin) to recieve yet another Gift from heaven to score a tripple century in test because no-one else more than him deserves it.

Sachin Vs Ponting (Commentators Fight)

Who's the better batsman??

Sachin or Ponting

Well ever since the ponting became a real man (its not that he wasn't before,but in cricketing terms) just when the great Brian lara retired ,there has been a constant debate about who amongst the two is best.

First i'll take you to the debate between two commentators just after the master got to his 46'th test match hundred.The two gentleman's were L.siva and a SA commentator (i'll call him sa thereafter).The beauty lies in world so read on the conversation:-

Sachin gets to his hundred.

Siva:-sac,this is what u wanted ,sachin's hundred and south african win. Well one wish is granted.

sac:- But I'll like the second one as well.

After 2-3 dialouge

Siva:-Sachin is running away from ponting .Ponting scored  100 against Pak and since then sachin has got three on the trot.

Its amazing .earlier it was hard to imagine someone getting 50 100's but now it seems all too easy.

sac:-Well let me put one fact in front of u .

Since ponting started playing sachin got 35 hundreds and ponting 39 so who is the better one.

(improve ur stats sac its 38,not 35)

Siva:-sachin

sac:-Sachin has scored most runs in india on flat pitches siva.

Siva:-sachin still.He has batted for almost 20 years.

sac:-Ponting too can bat 20 years.

Siva:- Let him bat but

The ans remains same sac,its Sachin tendulkar.

sac:-Oh u will go on and on for sachin.ok

i'll put it this way .batsman of 70's were better than modern one's.

So who's better sunny(Gavaskar) or sachin

Siva:-(i think he whispered sachin).

sac:-everytime i visit india ,i ask this question but noone except u have answered me.

So u r saying he's better than sunny.

Siva:-Let me sum this one up .

"EVERYTIME HE COMES OUT TO BAT,NO OTHER CRICKETER HAS TO FACE THE EXPECTATIONS OF MORE THAN A BILLION PEOPLE."

sac:-well  is that not the case for sunny .

Siva:-(laughing)Probably because there were not a billion people that time.

Now to support siva i've collected some stats for you guys to decide whoz better

(well my personal opinion is that its hard to seperate the two in test ,rather 3 including LARA

Each on them have their own valid points to be the best)

But overall its sachin wo stands out because of his Ultimate ODI record which even ponting cant imagine to get near to forget about overhauling.

*Since Ponting's debut in 1995:-

Batsman          Matches   Inn       Runs       Best      Avg.     100      50

RT Ponting        142      240      11859      257      55.67      39       51

      

R Dravid            139     240      11395      270     53.75       29       58   

   

SR Tendulkar     130      219     10916      248*    55.97      38        42   

  

JH Kallis            136     229      10813     189*     55.16      34       52   

*Upto 240 innings (Ponting has played 240)

SR Tendulkar    148      240      11821      248*      54.98      39      49

RT Ponting        142      240     11859      257       55.67       39     51   

*Upto 142 matches(Ponting has played 142)

Batsman          Matches  Inn       Runs       Best        Avg.      100     50

SR Tendulkar    142      229      11289      248*      55.06      37      47

RT Ponting        142      240      11859      257      55.67      39      51

One thing needs to be noted from above three stats,that the earlier phase of sachin's carrier was in early 90's

when run scoring was not as high as it is now.

This is clearly depicted in stats as comparing first 240 innings ,ponting overtakes tendulkar.This ,however doesnot mean he is better because of the difference in run scoring in early 90's and 20th century.

Hence the stat which shows the comparision after the debut of ponting gives us better picture because the cricket was same for both.

In that stat tendulkar is much better than rest of  the players listed even though he played less matched and ponting had the support of one of the all time great australian test team making batting easy for him.

In that sence lara had very little support thus making him one of the best if not the best.

Have a look at his fantabulous ODI record:-

Batsman          Matches   Runs     Best       Avg.       SR       100      50

SR Tendulkar     440    17394     186*     44.71     85.90     45       93

   

ST Jayasuriya    444    13428     189       32.43      91.22     28      68

   

RT Ponting        337    12542     164       43.09      80.36     28      75    

Disclaimer:-

 I cannot claim any of the above information to be perfectly correct.However i've tried my best to supply u the correct data and converastion.

The best batsman, across years and format

As usual there has to be a minimum criteria. We have decided on 2000 Test runs and 1977 ODI runs (so that Clive Lloyd is included). I am not going to do a batsman analysis which keeps Lloyd out but Vaas/Akram in. 116 players qualify and this is quite a substantial sample size. No Test player of note misses out. The only one who comes to mind is Shahid Afridi, who is one of the ODI greats but has scored only 1683 Test runs, and is unlikely to add more.

The following are the points allotted for different measures.

Tests: Runs scored - 100

Adjusted runs - 50 (adjusted for matches played during career)

Batting average - 200

% of Team score - 50

Bowling quality - 50 (weighted by runs scored)

Peer comparison - 50 (batting average comparison)

ODIs: Runs scored - 100

Adjusted runs - 50 (adjusted for matches played during career)

Batting average - 100 (adjusted for not outs)

Scoring Rate - 150

Bowling quality - 40 (weighted by runs scored)

Peer comparison - 30 (batting average comparison)

Peer comparison - 30 (strike rate comparison)

For both Tests and ODIs, the bowling quality is used by summing the product of "innings runs scored" and "average of other team bowling average" and dividing the "sum for all innings" by the "career runs scored". A very effective manner of doing this as proved by the fact that Gooch, who faced the formidable West Indian and Australian attacks, has a Test bowling quality figure of 31.98 (index value of 42.1), while Atapattu who has scored tons of runs against the weaker attacks has a bowling quality figure of 40.55 (index value of 10.0).

Now let us unveil the tables. These tables are current upto Test # 1944, which produced the unlikeliest of wins essayed by a resurgent and dynamic England side against a flat and insipid South Africa.

The best batsmen across formats - across years

No surprises for guessing who is at the top. The little maestro, Tendulkar, leads both Test and ODI tables, the Test table narrowly and ODI table by a comfortable margin so that he is placed in an unassailable position at the top of the combined tables. He has 801 points and leads the next batsman by a whopping 10%. He is likely to widen the gap further and is likely to have a near-12% gap by the time he decides to hang up his golden willow.

What does one say of Tendulkar. If one takes away the freakish numbers of Bradman, there is no one to touch Tendulkar. More than the runs he has scored, the manner in which he has scored, the balance, technique and poise he exhibits at the crease, his demeanour and impeccable behaviour, the way he conducts himself on and off the pitch, one could go on. Possibly the best thing I could say is that he is a role model, not just for the public, but for the other players.

After the wide gap comes Lara who just about edges ahead of Richards by single point. Two great West Indian batsmen, two of the greatest ever, are virtually tied for the second place. They are so close together, I am going to discuss them together.

Richards was by far the better ODI batsman than Lara, as evidenced by his second place in the ODI list. However Lara was quite a bit ahead of Richards in Tests, as again evidenced by his second place in the Test table. However what has happened is that each has wiped out the shortfall almost exactly with Lara gaining a point in this exchange. I do not need to say anything more of the two greats who, in different eras, have taken ODI and Test batting to great levels of entertainment. That they enjoyed varying degrees of success as team players and leaders was a reflection of the state of West Indian cricket at their respective times.

Ponting is a well-deserved fourth, couple of points behind. Those who question his leadership capabilities should not forget his batting achievements in both forms of the game. He is fourth in all the tables. In view of his age and form I expect Ponting to comfortably move the two West Indian greats to third/fourth places by end of 2010, or possibly earlier. It would be a well-deserved second place.

After some daylight, there is a surprise at the fifth position. Kallis is positioned here, ahead of Dravid. Kallis and Dravid are almost the same at Test level while Dravid is somewhat behind Kallis at ODI level. Anyhow I have heard many negative comments on these two great players. There is no doubt that Kallis has done most for South Africa amongst all players (let us not forget 509 international wickets). In what Dravid has done for India, he might be lagging behind only Tendulkar and Kapil Dev, and might be matched by Kumble and Gavaskar. Would Kallis and/or Dravid move above the two West Indian stalwarts is a difficult-to-answer question. Possibly Kallis who plays in both formats.

The top-10 has 3 Australians, 2 Indians, 2 West Indians, 2 Pakistanis and one South African batsmen. A fair distribution, one would say, with 5 countries represented. For the record, Jayawardene, Gooch, Martin Crowe, Andy Flower and Habibul Bashar are their countrys' best batsmen.

If there is one placing which has surprised me most, it is that of Sehwag, who almost made it to the top-10. Arguably the most destructive batsman of all time, keep a watch on this eleventh placed batsman. Sehwag is moving fast and how. One more series of matches like the recent Sri Lankan ones would move him up in between the two Pakistani greats and then who knows where he might end. And remember that this high position is without being given any credit for his extraordinary Test strike rate.

And amongst the ODI-10 of Tendulkar, Richards, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, Lara, Sehwag, Zaheer Abbas, De Silva and Saeed Anwar, only Zaheer Abbas might raise a few eyebrows. However readers would do well to remember that 2500+ runs in 62 matches at an average of 47.63 and a strike rate of 84.5 is exceptional, amongst the top-5 of all time. I am assuming that, as Hussey and Dhoni have done, he would have maintained these numbers in 120+ matches. Then his high ranking points make sense and he fully deserves this position. He was as free-scoring as Richards and as graceful as Gower.

The sacred cow that is Australia

Does Australia matter? The topic came up over lunch with two Australian journalists in Melbourne at the very start of this trip. To be fair the question barely came up again unless I raised it, so it isn't as if that is such a thing to worry about. But now, as we leave, is as good a time as any to revisit, maybe broaden it.

We were talking of sacred cows in various countries; most nations have a few. One of the journalists said the matter of whether Australia matters to the rest of the world is as close to a sacred cow as you can have here. Australia was a major ally in the war on terror, he said, adding, even if the US President thought it was Austria.

It is worth reflecting upon. The country is so far from much of the world. It is also out of place; its neighbours are vastly different cultures and peoples. Perhaps that's why there is a need not only to be distinct but to be involved and known.

Ads about Australia Day, great over-the-top stereotyping ones, seemed to suggest so. A number of other ads loved to begin with 'Australians love to do this' or 'In Australian homes' or some such (in Tasmania replace with Tasmanians of course). I only caught snippets and bytes of the news during my stay. I looked for Australian links to big, international news; an Australian casualty in the Haiti earthquake, how Australians fared in a TV and films awards show and even something about Australian security after the failed attempt to blow up a plane in the US. But I only did so because a colleague had told me to keep an eye out for it, as he reckoned it was Australia trying hard to be part of the world.

This happens everywhere, though, and it is increasingly the nature of news, to localise it, to make it relevant to its viewers; dog no longer bites man, dog bites you, or an Australian, Pakistani or Indian.

But in no other field or realm of life globally does Australia seem to matter as much as in sports. It is how I first came to know of Australia in early life; squash players, cricketers and hockey stars who mingled with and often beat Pakistani counterparts. Later only did I find out about Rolf Harris and Kylie (I preferred Danni because she was more anti-establishment somehow), Vegemite, 4X, Neighbours, Home and Away but later Heartbreak High. Much later, I learnt a little about how Australia came to be and the story of the Aborigines.

But sport is an opportunity for Australia to be relevant; few sports that they take part in actively are they poor at. Football (soccer) is picking up and it would be no surprise if a decade or so down the line they become more than just competitive. Having not heard much Australian music, or seen much of the country's art, sport is the most visible way in which Australian-ness seems to be expressed. They just know how to do sport, how to play it, structure it, nurture and develop it and respect it. Few countries show the world how important sport is to life.

There is much more to the country than just sport. Life, in all its tastes, seems to be lived well in the bigger cities. Certainly in Sydney the question of whether Australia matters just because it is so much a part of today's world. It is, like the other great, big cities, an overwhelming multicultural experience and there is so much of the rest of the world in it - as well as its own character - that it must matter, to many parts of the globe. Melbourne has become much more cosmopolitan just in the last few years apparently.

But it was in Tasmania, beautiful, lonely and a little spooky Tasmania, where we felt at one remove from the world. The clouds of Hobart were so angry and so alive, so vivid that it often seemed they were conspiring with the city's people as they floated on by, sniggering at some little shared secret or joke outsiders didn't know about. Here, it felt, whether Australia - or Tasmania as may be politically correct - mattered or not didn't really matter at all. The rest of the world didn't seem to matter much to Hobart.

At the plainest level of course, whether a country matters in the way the world goes round doesn't really matter anyway, for the world will go round regardless and the country will too. Living in Pakistan it sometimes seems like it might not actually be a bad thing if people stopped noticing for a while. And certainly it isn't as if the deepest imprint on my mind as I leave is that Australia is obsessed with proving itself. That would be that everyone wears skinny jeans here.

A late discovery: many young kids play tape-ball cricket here in their backyards. Perhaps Pakistan might be able to beat them at that. Perhaps not.

A great decade for Batsman and hammering for bowlers

464-The number of Tests played in the 2000s. The figure represented a significant increase over the 1990s, when 347 Tests were played. In the 2000s, 75.4% of the games yielded outright results, as opposed to 64.27% the decade prior. Teams proved more productive with the bat, averaging 34.17 per wicket, 2.50 runs more than the 1990s, and scored at a healthier rate - 3.20 runs per over compared to 2.86.

79-The number of Tests won by Australia in the 2000s. Though they were the pre-eminent team in the 1990s as well, the gulf between them and the others increased in the last 10 years. They lost 18 Tests in the 2000s, compared to 54 wins and 25 losses in the previous decade.

1405-The number of ODIs played in the 2000s, 472 more than in the previous decade. The volume of cricket between the decades is the most striking difference, while the average runs per wicket and the scoring rates only represent a marginal increase.

202-The number of ODIs won by Australia in the decade, in which they emerged as the most successful side. South Africa, with a win-loss ratio of 1.80, dominated the shorter format in the 1990s but ceded ground to Australia, who, especially under Ricky Ponting - his reign has included a record 21 consecutive wins - established themselves as the best ODI side of all time. Australia lost only 66 matches in the last 10 years; India, with their increasing clout in international cricket, played the most ODIs - 307. Only four teams played 200 or more ODIs in the 1990s; in the 10 years gone by, the figure rose to nine, including Zimbabwe.

3523-The number of 50-plus scores in ODIs in the 2000s, almost 2.51 per game. In the 1990s, the figure stood at 2.39, with 2231 scores of above fifty. Though the rise in batting averages is not great, the most important difference lies in the strike-rates between the two decades: 69.76 in the 90s compared to 75.06 in the noughties. The increase can be attributed to the innovations introduced in the format - the raising of field restrictions to 20 overs with the advent of the Powerplay, and the influence of Twenty20 cricket.

India topped the centuries list as well as the list of scores of 50 or above in both decades Notice the rise in strike-rates. No team had a strike-rate of 80 or more in the nineties, and only five topped 70. In the 2000s, India and Australia have scored more than 80 per 100 balls, and the number of teams with a strike-rate of more than 70 went up to 10 (excluding the Asia XI, Africa XI and ICC World XI teams).

Gone were the days when 300 was a match-winning

945-The number of centuries in Tests in the decade gone by. The average number of hundreds per Test was 2.04; in the 1990s, the figure stood at 1.58.

Australia topped the list of centurions in both decades, by a fair margin. (Australia headed the batting averages in the 2000s with 40.66, while five other teams averaged above 30. In the 1990s Australia averaged 33.07, and were one of only three teams to average above 30.

2449-The number of lbws in Tests in the 2000s, an average of 5.36 per match. It's marginally higher than the average in the previous decade (5.25), and much higher than the two earlier ones - 4.68 in the 1980s and 3.86 in the 1970s.

132-The number of matches won while chasing in the fourth innings in Tests in the 2000s. In terms of percentages, the number of wins while batting last in the 2000s was lesser than the decade prior - 37.71 against 38.11. However, when chasing targets of over 200, the 2000s produced more successes: 33 out of 132 fourth-innings Test wins (25%) in the noughties came while chasing a target of or in excess of 200; in the nineties, the figure was 17.63% (15 out of 85).

104-The number of innings victories in the 2000s - far more than in the nineties in terms of percentages too: 29.71 as opposed to 22.42. A major reason for the difference in the figures was Bangladesh, for 33 out of their 52 losses were by an innings.

168-The number of scores of 500 or above in Tests in the 2000s, which works out to one every 2.76 matches. In the nineties the average was 5.10 (68 in 347 Tests). Australia scored 500 or more in 32 matches in the last decade, winning 24.

261-Scores of 300 or above in ODIs in the 2000s. The nineties witnessed 71 in 933 games, an average of one every 13.14 games, compared to 5.38 in the last decade.

India and Australia had the most scores of 300 or above in the last decade. In the nineties, a score of 300 resulted in a win on most occasions, but that was no longer the case in the 2000s. Nine out of 62 games in the nineties featured both sides reaching 300 (14.52%), but in the 2000s, the figure had swollen to 20%.

26-Number of matches won by teams chasing scores of 300 or above in the last decade, out of 215 such run-chases. In the nineties this happened only four times in 61 games.

34.10The Test bowling average in the 2000s; in the 1990s it was 31.51. The difference in the economy rates was also substantial, rising from 2.75 to 3.09. The strike-rate, however, improved marginally - 66 as opposed to 68.6.

Australia led the wickets tally in both decades, and were the only team to average less than 30 in the 2000s; three teams averaged less than 30 in the 1990s.

4554The number of wickets taken by spinners in Tests in the 2000s, out of 13863 wickets in the decade, a percentage of 32.77; in the nineties their wicket-share was 27.57%. In the 2000s, spinners recorded a slightly higher average but improved their strike-rate considerably (82 to 73). Pace bowlers in the 2000s were less effective than in the previous decade. They took 9182 wickets in the 2000s, averaging 33.22; their percentage wicket-share dropped from 70.94 to 66.23. Their bowling average increased by almost 3.50 runs, though their strike -ate remained almost the same.

Though pace bowlers enjoyed the bulk of the share of wickets, the leading wicket-takers in both decades were spinners - Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan.