Tendulkar stakes his claim as best batsman in all forms
Columnist By Kersi Meher-Homji, 26 Feb 2010 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, David Warner, International Cricket, Sachin Tendulkar
Tendulkar became the first batsman to score 200 runs in a One Day International. AP Photo/Gurinder Osan
February has proved to be a fabulous month for cricket in all forms. We had a spine-tingling Test in Kolkata, followed by a nail-biting One-day International at Jaipur, and a landmark double century by the evergreen Sachin Tendulkar in the second ODI in Gwalior on Wednesday.
On 21 February, New Zealand defeated Australia by 2 runs in a women’s Twenty20 international match at Hobart in another thrilling finish.
Australia had facile wins over the West Indies in Twenty20s in Hobart and Sydney, in between those cliff-hangers, to remain invincible in the current season. These matches were livened up by Australia’s dynamic openers David Warner and Shane Watson hitting sixes galore.
In these two Twenty20s, Warner smashed nine sixes, Watson eight.
Warner’s six-o-mania in Sydney (7 sixes in his 29-ball 67) was reminiscent of India’s Yuvraj Singh belting England’s Stuart Broad for six sixes in one over in Durban in the 2007 World Twenty20.
In his 58 (7 sixes, 3 fours) off 16 balls, Yuvraj’s strike rate was 362.50, which works out at almost a four every ball. He has hit most sixes in Twenty20 internationals: 35 in 17. Warner, with 19 sixes in 11 matches, is not far behind.
Warner’s 50 in Sydney came off 19 balls, close to Yuvraj’s 12-ball 50 in Durban.
In the inaugural Twenty20, Ricky Ponting had blasted 98 not out against New Zealand in Auckland in 2005. Off one over from Daryl Tuffey, he had hammered 30 runs (626646).
New Zealand bowlers will remember this sky-writing when dare-devil openers Warner and Watson take them on in two Twenty20 internationals starting today and on Sunday at Wellington and Christchurch.
Just as the West Indies had 3 Ws – Weekes, Worrell and Walcott – in Tests in 1950s and 60s, Australia has two W’s – Warner and Watson – in Twenty20s today.
Meanwhile, Tendulkar keeps shattering records in Tests and ODIs at breakneck speed.
Here are his spectacular figures: in Test matches, Tendulkar has scored the most runs – 13,447 runs at 55.56 in 166 Tests with 47 centuries and 54 fifties. West Indian legend Brian Lara comes next with 11,953 runs at 52.88 in 131 Tests (34 centuries and 48 fifties), followed by Ricky Ponting, with 11,859 at 55.67 in 142 Tests (39 centuries and 51 fifties).
In ODIs, Tendulkar again leads with 17,598 runs at 45.12 with 46 centuries and 93 fifties. Sri Lankan Sanath Jayasuriya is next, 13,428 runs at 32.43 (28 centuries and 68 fifties), followed by Ponting 12,731 at 43.30 (29 centuries and 76 fifties).
In combined Tests and ODIs, Tendulkar is way ahead with 31,045 runs at 49.12 in 608 matches with 93 centuries and 147 fifties. Ponting is next best with 24,590 runs at 48.50 (68 centuries and 127 fifties).
Hence, Tendulkar is supreme with the bat in both types of the game. Just as he became the only one to hit a double hundred in ODIs on Wednesday, Lara is the only one to record a quadruple century in Tests.
Contrasting batsmen Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, MS Dhoni, Watson and Warner have demonstrated that all three forms of the game can coexist.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Cricket, David Warner, International Cricket, Sachin Tendulkar
July 2nd 2010 @ 8:56am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Greg, Both of us have put forth excellent points. I agree with you on many of your points and respect your logic.
The two guilty parties were perhaps BCCI and Harbhajan who agreed that monkey is a racist slur. It may be in US and Europe but CERTAINLY not in India.
Yesterday, I mentioned about the procession in Mumbai when I was using monkey kidneys for my MSc degree. No one bothered about my using rabbits, hamsters, rats, mice, frogs… But monkey, the Lord Hanuman, never!
Back to cricket. Hornby, England’s former captain who had also represented England in Rugby in 19th century, was nicknamed Monkey. And he had no objection.
McGrath has no objection in being called Pigeon and M Clarke in being called Pup. So why does another animal, monkey, deemed a racist slur? Aren’t we being discriminatory? Monkey is the most intelligent animal after humans. Much more than dogs, cats and birds. Aren’t we insulting the monkeys?
When a boy, my sister had nicknamed me Vanglo (monkey) and I took it as a compliment.
The ignorance of Indian culture among foreigners is staggering.
In science we have changed our theories, world being round and not square was one, diseases being caused by living microorganisms… It is sign of maturity and intelligence to say, “Gee, I was wrong. Good you mentioned this to me.”
Harbhajan sledged that day in January 2008 and should have been punished like others who did before him. But it was not racial because monkey is NOT a racist word in India. Please concede this point, Greg. Everything else is irrelevant.
July 2nd 2010 @ 10:09am
Vinay Verma said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Gentlemen,and I mean that sincerely,please permit me to enter this debate.
Monkey to Symonds is an abusive term. I do not know if you both remember Gavaskar using this in the West Indies when he said “..they were apes just down from the trees..” Or something similar. In my mind there is no doubt that Harbhajan used this in a racist and taunting manner.
Kersi my mother has called be “bandar” many times when I was mischievous or did something funny. In the Indian context among Indians it is not offensive..in fact it is endearing.
Stereotypes become gospel just as Google becomes Aristotle.
I would hope you can both agree to disagree . I respect both of you but in this instance Kersi,please forgive me for disagreeing with you. I believe Harbhajan used it in a derogatory manner.
July 2nd 2010 @ 11:06am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
My point, Vinay, is that monkey is not a racist word in India.
We don’t know what Harbhajan said. “Monkey” or “Maki”. The second word is much worse. He did use it as a sledge and not endearingly. I have said it five times in this debate that Harbhajan should have been punished for sledging which he did. BUT IT WAS NOT A RACIST REMARK. That is my big point.
The only racism was the fact that a white match referee took the words of white cricketers and not of brown croicketers WITHOUT ANY AUDIO OR VIDEO EVIDENCE. One is innocent until proved guilty and there was no proof.
And why do every Australian believe that what Gilchrist wrote in his ghosted book is gospel? Monkey and Maki are phonetically similar.
I agree Harbhajan should have punished for sledging. So should dozens of Australian (and other) Test greats in the last four decades.
July 3rd 2010 @ 2:36am
Greg Russell said | July 3rd 2010 @ 2:36am | Report comment
“But it was not racial because monkey is NOT a racist word in India. Please concede this point, Greg.”
Hi Kersi, yes obviously I grant you this point.
Racism is difficult for this very reason: one black man takes it as compliment to be called black (for example the great West Indian players of the 1980s), another black man is mortally offended (for example the Sri Lankan in the Lehmann incident). For you, Kersi, it was a compliment to be called a monkey, for Symonds it was racial abuse. I guess the question is whether he was being unreasonable. From having been brought up in Australia, I would say Symonds was being reasonable. When I was at school, it definitely was offensive to call someone a monkey. As I said yesterday, Symonds is not alone. When Spanish and Italian football crowds made monkey noises at black players, UEFA definitely regarded it as racism. From this viewpoint I find that the defence of “monkey is a compliment in India” breaks down. It would only be valid if Harbhajan had no knowledge that Symonds was offended by the term. But he did have knowledge. Maybe if Harbhajan, in the heat of the moment, forgot that Symonds found the word offensive, that would be some sort of excuse. Indeed, I imagine that once things calmed down after a few days there would have been some sympathy for Harbhajan if he had said “Look, in India the word is a compliment, in the heat of the battle I forget that Symo finds it offensive, I apologize”. But nothing like this was ever said, therefore it cannot be admitted as an excuse.
So the whole thing really hinges on whether or not “monkey” was said – that would be the only way out. I have argued already why I believe that monkey was said.
It’s worth dwelling more on the “no audio or video evidence” line. While that is true, one must also remember that the reverse is also true: the video or audio evidence does not prove that Harbhajan said anything else. The video and audio evidence is consistent with both sides of the story, therefore it follows that one must go on other evidence (which is what I do).
There was a similar debate last year on The Roar about the final West Indies wicket in the test in Perth. The WI started the last day with their last two batsmen needing something like 50 runs to pull off an unlikely victory. One of them edged to Haddin (I think off Bollinger), the umpire gave it out, and the WI requested a video review. The video was inconclusive, so a lot of people at The Roar argued that this meant that it was not out. It doesn’t! All it means is that one can’t say for sure from the video whether it’s out or not. Thus the video umpire went with the on-field decision. I argued very strongly that this was the right decision, even though many at The Roar thought otherwise (seemingly more out of pro-West Indian feelings than out of logic). The Australian appeal was instantaneous and widespread, with no evidence of choreography. What the video and audio did show was that there was a sound at exactly the moment the ball passed the bat, that this sound was like that of bat on ball, and that there was nothing else but ball that the bat could have been hitting at that instant. In other words, all the “indirect” evidence was strongly in favor of an edge, even if the video by itself was inconclusive.
And so we come to courts of law. In how many convictions is there video evidence of guilt? Very few. In other words, the vast majority of court cases involve having to look at “indirect” evidence. The accuser says “He did it”, the accused says “I did not”. The judge/jury have to decide on the basis of wider evidence. Why should it be any different in cricket?
Thanks Vinay for joining in – always good to have your view.
I think this is longer than Isner-Mahut now! (Incidentally, the solution I thought of to the Isner-Mahut “problem” is to have no more breaks for change-of-ends after 7-6 in the 5th set. In other words, the players just change ends without being allowed to go to their chairs. This would see most fifth sets over before 10-10, I would imagine, and it would reward fitness. I think this is much better from all angles than McEnroe’s solution of having a tiebreak at 30-30!)
July 3rd 2010 @ 8:41am
Vinay Verma said | July 3rd 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Greg, I may be on the outer with Kersi at the moment because we are having our own Isner-Mahut on the subject of Howard’s rejection.
On this point I would love to have your viewpoint as I have been advocating that the “rigorous procedure” CA is hanging its shingle on was really a rigorous arm-twisting of Cricket NZ. With your insight into things Kiwi I would love to hear your views.
July 3rd 2010 @ 10:52am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 3rd 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Let’s call it a draw or a tie-break, Greg.
We can put our debate together and publish it as a booklet as your points are very interesting and logical. So are mine. But we are so parallel that our lines will never meet!
Forget Isner and Mahut, would you believe that a table tennis (TT) match went on and on for 59 hours!
According to Guinness Book of Records, “The longest recoded time for a marathon singles match in TT is 59 hours and 30 minutes by Graham Shires and Peter Shaw of the Leigh Park Community Centre Youth Club in Hampshire from 29 to 31 May 1971.”
Another TT match between Alex Ehrlich of Poland and Rumania’s Paneth Farcas went on and on in a crucial Swaythling Cup match at Prague in April 1936.
They began with a rally that incredibly lasted for two hours and 12 minutes before the first point was decided. The ball went back and forth for an estimated 12,000 times with neither player making a mistake. [Like you and I].
Imagine 132 minutes for a single point! You can watch a full length movie in that time or a Twenty20 cricket match.
Greg, we must meet and have a coffee together when you are next in Sydney. Roar will give you my e-mail / phone number. And one word we won’t mention would be Race, unless it is a 100 metre race in Olympics 2012!
July 3rd 2010 @ 5:27pm
Greg Russell said | July 3rd 2010 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Hi Kersi, yes I’d love to have a cup of coffee with you one day, Vinay too for that matter. I’d even like to talk to you about racism. I like arguing my views with conviction, but equally I like listening to others do the same, and examining whether my own views hold up. As long as it’s done with respect, and is based on fact and logic, such exchanges are beneficial all round.
I’m on sabbatical in Germany until the end of the year, then I return to my job in Christchurch. I’ll let you know when next I will be in Sydney. I have met up with Spiro a few times in Christchurch, but I don’t imagine you travel around to rugby tests as he does!
Regarding long sporting contests, I’m sure you’re familiar with some of the records from the Walter Lindrum era of billiards.
Vinay asked about John Howard’s election. I’m not aware of who’s taking what side on that one, because I’ve avoided the Roar on it. Rather, I’ve been restricting myself to cricinfo, which of course has had an extensive and high quality coverage. Here are opinion pieces by Gideon Haigh and Sambit Bal which I really can’t imagine any rational person could disagree with to a large extent:
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/463737.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/465518.html
In particular, I find that Haigh expressed in very nice prose what has been evident to me right from the beginning:
“In this case, one might as well name and shame. The casus belli of the dispute over Howard’s nomination is that he argued against, and finally insisted on the cancellation of, an Australian tour of Zimbabwe. … In any case, what sort of governance is this that takes its cues in moral arbitration from associates of one of the cruellest and most corrupt political criminals of modern times?”
Regarding whether NZC had it’s arm twisted in the nomination process (see Vinay’s question), that is obviously quite possibly the case. Sir John Anderson is an outstanding man and would also make an outstanding ICC president. However this does not mean the arbitration process was biased rather than rigorous. I understand that there are official records of the process, so that could be checked.
Here’s what Justin Vaughan said yesterday about Anderson now being nominated:
“He is a busy man. Since January, he has taken on a few more directorships, he’s now the chairman of PGG Wrightsons. The ICC president’s role takes a lot of time if you want to do it well. The other point is the events of the last week have probably made the ICC not quite as attractive a proposition to people as it was. I imagine there would be a bit of hesitancy from anyone to put their name forward because you never know if it is going to be torpedoed.”
The fact that Howard is prepared to do the job full-time whereas Anderson has other commitments (see above) is a strong argument in Howard’s favor.
I am very interested that Howard has not yet officially withdrawn and there is talk that he may be re-nominated. At first I find this stupidly audacious, but then I remember that it is not for nothing that Howard was called “Lazarus with a Triple Bypass”. The BCCI may have picked a fight with the wrong person. Howard will have a lot of friends in very high places around the world, including possibly in India. The BCCI may not have to answer to anyone in the cricketing world, but if Howard can get outside political pressure exerted on them, then that becomes a completely different equation. Just look at the swift demise of Lalit Modi once some outside pressure was brought to bear.
July 3rd 2010 @ 5:56pm
Greg Russell said | July 3rd 2010 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
PS. Here’s another quote from Justin Vaughan. He must be absolutely seething to say this on record given whom it might get back to:
“NZC is held up as a model of good governance in terms of having independent directors who do what is best for cricket. But that obviously doesn’t apply to the ICC and that is a shame.”
July 6th 2010 @ 12:44pm
Vinay Verma said | July 6th 2010 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Greg, I have sent a mail to Zac rquesting him to forward my email details to you.Best,vinay