As you may have heard, India are touring Australia and it is their diminutive powerhouse, Sachin Tendulkar, who is stealing headlines like singles from sneaky nudges between cover and point.
One cannot read five lines regarding this much hyped series without some mention of the Little Master’s pending milestone – a century of centuries.
Okay, so it has a poetic ring to it, but really, how significant is this milestone? The chief reason I have a tendency to dismiss this achievement is because it is in reference to international centuries, a highly unusual mishmash of one day and test cricket statistics.
Since when did we start plonking tests and one dayers in the same fish kettle?
These two games are VERY different beasts, to the point where they are barely the same sport. The rules are different, the styles are a gulf apart and in the shorter form of the game you don’t even have to take you pyjamas off to take the field.
You could almost say they are like day and night, and in fact they are played accordingly.
You only have to speak to the likes of Nathan Bracken or Michael Bevan (and a host of player who aren’t Australian) to find out that even if you are highly successful at one that does not even necessarily mean you’ll even get to strap on the pads on in the other.
So why in this case are we so ready to combine statistics from the two? The same reason we are suckers for the right radio jingle – because it has a catchy ring to it.
We jumped up and down like we had all O-D’ed on Charlie Sheen when Warnie took his 700th Test wicket on Boxing Day back in 2006. The nation rejoiced as that venom-filled, fizzing leg break skittled the English captian Strauss.
But I remember no such celebrations when he passed 1000 ‘international’ wickets. Was Warnie robbed due to a lack of alliteration alone?
If we so willingly lump together Sachin’s test and one day centuries then where do we draw the crease?
Are we ready to credit sonny Sonny Bill Williams with having 222 career points (132 from league/90 from rugby)? Maybe even throw on a couple more points for his boxing knockouts.
Can we just say Scott Draper has two career titles and not bother specifying that one is for golf and the other for tennis?
Can we add Karmichael Hunt’s AFL points to his league tally? Wait a second, adding a behind or two per season is barely worth the trouble.
Andrew Walker: 901 points?
Can Brock Lesnar pad his MMA record with ‘fights’ from the WWE?
Does Seb Vettle include kart and F3 victories when asked how many races he’s won?
While we’re at it, let’s add Ian Thorpe’s medal tally to his collection of snappy cardigans which one could only presume, would put him in the hundreds.
We haven’t even got to the American dual sportsmen yet and the combination of football and baseball statistics for the likes of Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders could really make for mind blowing, yet vastly irrelevant, reading.
Lucky for you that Michael Jordan only batted .202 for 88 hits in the minors, so it is barely worth adding it to his 14390 career field goals.
Okay, I feel I have probably made my point ad nauseam.
But as farcical as this statistical culmination of Tendulkar’s career is, the most amazing thing of it all is that it really seems to be affecting him. One could easily hypothesise that this media storm in his Chai teacup has put his mind, not on accumulating the next run, but on who to raise his bat to or how to react when he passes this myth of a milestone.
Tendulkar is a player in form. Stevie Wonder and Blind Freddy have discussed it at length, but the 99 monkeys on his back are clearly impeding his quest for big runs. This was never more evident than when, on a perfect SCG deck, he fell to the gentle left armers of a part timer after being well and truly set on 80.
It has been this way since March of last year when he made his last ton against South Africa. The weight of expectation of statistically deluded fans in India and indeed around the globe have backed the Little Master into a corner and with each passing match, it appears an even tougher ask for him to bat himself out of it.
I love great sporting statistics as much as the next cricket tragic, but those who consider Tendulkar’s achievement more than a trivial milestone when it finally arrives are part of the reason it has taken so long.
If it happens at the WACA, I will stand and applaud like all others. But rest assured, I will be applauding SRT’s 52nd test century, nothing more, nothing less.
Captain Grumpy
Guest
Marees, I don't think any of the current crop of Australian players (that's all you name as an example) will pass Tendulakar's mark but that really means nothing. Many more in the future will challenge it, that's one of the wonderful things about cricket. We've seen some greats, we also weren't alive to see some other greats but many more will come along and with the amount of cricket being played, many more will pass the totals of the current greats. Who knows, we may may all be putting the same arguments forward about a wonderful Bangladeshi batsman or a New Zealand prodigy. For me, it's not a matter of if, but a matter of who and when.
Captain Grumpy
Guest
Haha, I must admit Brett, Purple's got you with the BM input on each thread. One might think you've got shares in "The Roar"....
marees
Guest
Purple, These stats matter a lot (Tendulkatr's 100th and Warnes's 1000th) if they are not broken for a long time. Do you think David Warner or Usman Kwaja can last for 2 decades in international cricket. Only thing that distracts is 19 of these were against non-test nations. but that still makes it 80 international centuries. Can you name the probable candidates out of the current players who can come come close to this?
Fly on the Wall
Guest
I think you are being a bit harsh on a truly awesome batsman. Yes, they play on flat tracks on the subcontinent but they also play against a lot more quality spinners on those tracks than we Aussies do out here. Should we discount our runs against the Poms when they were rubbish? The only thing that makes 100 100s a bit lopsided is that anyone who bats from 5-7 in ODIs will never get anywhere near Tendulkar's number of hundreds. If you are not top 4 (or realistically top 3) you won't get many ODI tons. Whereas in Test cricket you can score them all the way down to No.8 (Vettori, Akram, Johnson etc). Don't forget Bradman made a lot of his runs against some ordinary bowling - and IN ONLY TWO COUNTRIES ! Anyone see the footage on Ch 9 of the Indian bowling from 1947-48? Wouldn't even get a bowl in Sydney Shires cricket. Tendulkar has made runs everywhere. What has spoilt this tour is that the focus has ben solely on him and the 100th 100 - an understandable media spotlight pre-tour, but surely not every match? I think it has dragged down his team-mates. I know blokes who have been able to get press passes for obscure overseas papers (Ireland and US) purely to report should Tendulkar hit the milestone. Surely those rags can use agency copy? What's sadly lacking from the Indian press is some insightful reporting into the failures in England and Australia, and the dressing room politics.
Brett McKay
Expert
sorry Purple, I didn't see this the other day.. "Trivial statistical anomaly that appears to be effecting the greatest batsman of modern times" is my vote. It is, as someone mentioned above, something that stats-hounds in India discovered and ran with. It's still a remarkable achievement, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly worth all the pressure it seems to be creating for individual and team..
Captain Grumpy
Guest
It baffles me that people keep saying Tendulkar's mark of 100 hundreds (or his total Test runs for that matter) won't ever be passed. With the amount of cricket being played these days and the demand for more by the public, it won't matter if someone makes his debut at 16 or at 22, someone good enough will be able to match the amount of games Sachin's played and therefore the total runs and/or hundreds. They could even break the record playing at an average 2 or 3 runs less than Tendulkar to do it (obviously by playing more games). In terms of total runs, Dravid, Kallis & Ponting's totals aren't that far off and whilst none of them will reach him, it stands to reason there will be plenty more in the future of that calibre. All it would take is someone playing ODI's reasonably high up the order (eg. a Warner type who will play both formats for an extended period of time) and the hundreds will be reachable. The player I speak of may not even be born yet, but to me, it's really just a matter of time. Bradman's average on the other hand....
mushi
Guest
I think you’re straw manning a little to extend that to symmonds etc. Lara is in the same class as Tendulkar (hence the discussions) he has accumulated his fair share of runs and his on song netted him a cheeky 400 to his name so putting those guys up is a little alarming. I think he’s saying that here are two very comparable guys on the whole and he has a preference for the guy who best performance is greater than the others rather than the marginal difference in average performance.
Ken
Guest
I agree a 100% about the extra pressure that is being built on the Master due to the hype and hoopla around the landmark. I’ll just talk about cricket and not any other games so International level is a completely different level altogether and a 100 tons at international level is certainly some achievement, though test & ODIs are way different from each other the level is pretty much the same, If Shane Warne had 100 Five Wicket Hauls in international cricket it could have been an achievement of an equal magnitude to that of a 100 Centuries. Muttiah Muralitharan has some 70+ not sure about the exact number but 70+ five wicket hauls and understandably so since he is the highest wicket taker ever. The example about 1000th wicket is something that does not make sense and it rightly was not celebrated. A century of centuries(International) is way more than that especially given the fact that the closest to Sachin is even way too far from him. Interesting article Purple, you made some good points but the crux of your article is irrelevant
Londonnightis
Guest
I agree absolutely.The author is trying to belittling a significant milestone and is trivializing the little mastery over both the forms of CRICKET. His argument is specious and worth just those , empty words. he is one in a billion and can be ignored. I do not understand the juvenile logic behind this article. It is not Tendulkar who is shouting rooftops and he is record saying that it just number. We have our Jacob, who has scored the maximum number of first class centuries, mind you first class centuries and we are not talking only about test cricket here it includes 3 day 4 day games among counties. And Bradman was lauded for his 100 first centuries. I rest my case.
sups
Guest
ya ben carter u r really r a bit silly....coz bradman may be the very best...bt if u start insulting tendulkar's achievements in dat fashion then i have to say some points like bradman never had the versatility of tendulkar. he used to play in australian and england soil only..while tendulkar has scored hundreds in every test playing nation's soil..plus the way he has scored in odi-s are also highly impressive...and if one say about playing so many no of matches...then i need to say that he has played that much bcoz of that much ability. And no one knows whether bradman could maintain his his avg to 99 after playing 180 odd test matches(i am not counting 450 odd odis)..SO, jst celebrate his wonderful achievements when its done..this level of consistency for so many years is truly unbelievable...
Johnno
Guest
technique style is over rated if you want to see 3 awful techniques but 3 of the worlds greatest batsman of the modern era you only have to look at Australian and south african batsman Keplar Wessels, and the 2 Indian great Navjot Sidhu and Ravi Shastri. All 3 had awful techniques but were 3 of the all time great batsman of the modern era. Who can forget Shastri's double hundred smashing the greatest spin bowler of them all Shane Warne all over the SCG memorable stuff, in unattractive technique but being so good at scoring runs as was Ravi Shastri. And Grahame Gooch did not have the best technique either, but was still effective as was Dirk Wellham as well. And who can forget Australia's unluckiest cricketer Simon Katich his shuffling technique across the stumps, but still effective. So technique is not a measure of greatness it is sheer weight of runs as these great cricketers prove.
Jeff Dowsing
Guest
I reckon if that was your intended headline Purple Shag and you managed to keep the subbies at bay you've done well. I can't see why some are getting their knickers in a twist. Sachin is one of the best in the history of the game, if anyone wants to compare apples they can do so until the sacred cows come home. All that's really being said is that a landmark which goes more to longevity in the game (which also goes to his greatness) seems to be putting undue pressure on the player in question. To give this obsession with scoring 100's some perspective, I think it was AB or Dean Jones that once said their proudest innings was a 48no against the Windies at their peak on a virtually unplayable wicket. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
Cheers for the comments people. My last article on Billy didn't even rate for a single comment. Must be the provocative headline here. There is a lot of great insight here on the thread. Just to clarify a few things, firstly, how anyone could deduce that I hate one day cricket from this article is beyond me. My favourite player was Michael Bevan growing up, and I used to watch him playing shield & Mechantile mutual cup, but when I really loved watching him was when he was saving Australia's arse countless times in the bright green & gold. I love cricket in all forms, bad 5th grade included and will watch and usually enjoy any for of the great game. I think 49 one day centuries is an amazing achievement also and, as many of you have said, it shows SRT's adaptability to the shorter form of the game which only adds to his greatness. Also the headline, it should have read 'Tendulkar's hundreth hundred's a sham...' and not to mean the century itself, but only the statistical milestone. Maybe sham is a bit strong also, but I mean that in the sense of the media beat up that surrounds the achievement. It may have been started by the Indians, but the press from all interested countries have taken it and run with it like nothing I have seen before. I literally have barely read one cricket article about this series that fails to mention it, and I have some beef with that as I consider it nothing more than a trivial milestone. Not to detract from the great tonnes he has made throughout his career, he is a genius and the best batsmen i've ever had the pleasure of watching and i've seen most in the modern era. But the point most people seem to be missing ('cept you Jason), which is coincidently the main point of the article, is that Tendulkar seems to be believing the hype surrounding the achievement and it's getting to him. I feel there is no doubt it is effecting his game, as it's not like he is going through a rut as he has been the best of the Indian batsmen this tour (not that the bar has been set particularly high). So the fact that three figures seems a mountain to climb for him is genuinely surprising. Like BC pointed out, the press, headlines and the will of the fans to be there on 'that day' have created this. You'd think as a man that's been in the pressure cooker countless times he'd be able to block these external pressures out, but I don't believe it's been playing on his mind (take a breath people, it's just an opinion, I cannot ever be sure what SRT is thinking). Yes it is a unique achievement, but it was when Murali passed 1000 with the ball and I remember no such circus. anyone remember who MM's 1000th international victim was? Me neither. www.therestijustsquandered.com
Jason
Guest
As an Australian fan I am all for the milestone to be treated as important by Indians. It is clearly weighing on Sachin's mind and hopefully it will continuen to do so for the rest os the series.
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
Keeping your nose clean here regarding the topic at hand McKay? After all, it's barely a Roar thread without the opinion of BM. Valid milestone or trivial statistical anomaly that appears to be effecting the greatest batsman of modern times?
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
Agree whole heartedly with your summary of some great batsmen here Sheek and the part about statistics being a bit over the top. As Vas pointed out, the ability to make important runs in crisis situations is vastly overlooked to begin with. But I do take exception to your 'on song' argument in terms of Brian Lara. There are a host of batsmen that when 'on song' were far more dangerous than SRT. Guys like Sehwag, Gilchrist, Symond & Jayasuriya spring to mind initially. They were so devastating when they were on form, they could snatch a match away in the blink of an eye. Maybe I am picking nits here, but I don't think that can be used as an argument as to Lara's superiority in any sense in the debate between him and the little master (I am not suggesting that you think Lara is more superior than Sachin). As you said, it's all about effectiveness and consistency, and SRT has shown us that he possesses both of those qualities in spades when he is healthy.
BennO
Guest
I find the argument pretty weak, petty and rather pointless. He's about to.achieve an incredible milestone that may never be surpassed. It's incredible. Hats off to him for being so dominant for so long in two different forms of the game. Hats off to warnie for his 1000 and to murali for his no doubt amazing total as well.
Aman
Guest
Bradman has created his own unique pinnacle. Noone is going to match his average. He may have got to a 100 100s himself in the modern age - but would his average have remained so stratospheric? Tendulkar's upcoming mark is also a unique record. The scary thing is that his final tally of 100s will be even greater. In a way ODI 100s may be harder to come - perhaps because of the additional pressure of maintaining a high strike rate. This is borne out by Tendulkar himself -48 100s in some 450 ODIs and 51 100s in some 300 Test innings. Bradman's average and Tendulkars 100s (as a combination of ODIs and Tests) - will forever stand the test of time. Practically every other cricketing record will be broken - barring these two. If this is not worth celebrating - then what is?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Vas, Dont ever blame an author for headlines in The Roar. Put the blame where it belongs, on their inept subeditors.
Captain Grumpy
Guest
I agree with you Purple Shag on the content of the article, but the headline does seem a little extreme and misleading. I think it's actually a shame for him that this has clearly overshadowed what will most likely be his last tour to Australia. He has played some wonderful innings here and the fans here really do appreciate and respect him but I fear the lack of media attention on anything other than this silly milestone is allowing all else to fly under the radar.