Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
dravid and ganguly came in late 90s around 98-99
even they had lot of centuries in which india had lost,it was during this india had better line up.
few i can remember is dravid scoring agains't south africa in south africa.
I think Dravid came into pic in mid 90s. Anyways, that was just one name, there were others too. It may have been again media's fault that they presented Sachin as the only player who would save India but there were many other players too. Look at success % for Dravid and Sachin's centuries.
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
I think Dravid came into pic in mid 90s. Anyways, that was just one name, there were others too. It may have been again media's fault that they presented Sachin as the only player who would save India but there were many other players too. Look at success % for Dravid and Sachin's centuries.
Sachin tendulkar has 100 centuries with 53wins and 25 times india has lost ,23 matches drawn
Rahul dravid has 48 centuries with 23 matches won and 8 lost,17 matches drawn
sachin has better win ratio when he has scored an century compare to dravid ,there are so many innings were he scored around 70-90's runs were india won the match
dravid doesn't even have the half the numbers,only problem with you guys his everyone points at when sachin fails and dravid performs.
dravid has also failed many times no one points at him ,especially his ODI record isn't that good he only started playing with better strike rate much later stage in his career.but as a test batsmen i have complete respect for him one of the best player of modern test cricket ,only problem was he was over shadowed by sachin tendulkar who in my opinon was better player of the two
coming to first question,it was around 96-97 dravid and ganguly made debut.
i remeber till 98-99 sachin was the main player,it was around 99 ganguly started playing better in odi dravid in test matches
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
Thanks to whoever put these stats together. A couple observations:
India loses less than 35% of the games when SRT scores a 100. So all the nonsense about "SRT 100 = India will lose" is rubbish.
I believe SRTs lower win % compared to other players is because of two things. One, he carried the batting most of the 90s when a lot of these "losing cause" 100s were scored. Two, he actually does slow down for his 100. He is a national and international cricketing treasure but the fact remains that sometimes he does put his personal milestone ahead of maximizing (not just increasing) India's chance to win, which has resulted in many 100s that were a losing cause.
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
^^
that's rubbish,i can hardly remember india losing because of sachin slowing down...
this nervous 90 was recent phenomenon when he was getting out on 99
bhai we cant really be debating based what you and what you do not remember
forget losing for a second, the fact that he slows down.. is selfish.. Again he is not the only one, many players from many countries do this.. it's selfish.
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
i'm shocked by how poorly so many of you understand statistics. the analysis being discussed here is incredibly facile. firstly, century winning percentage is only meaningful relative to the overall team winning percentage. secondly, strike rate is a much more important metric. a proper analysis of these statistics reveals that tendulkar's centuries have been the second highest quality centuries in the world amongst star batsmen, behind only brian lara's.
i addressed this slanderous and nonsensical myth a year ago in an old post copied below:
*how did this ridiculous assessment become a standard line on gupshup?
a quick look at the numbers reveals that when tendulkar scores a century, india has lost only 27% of those matches. however, india's overall loss percentage in matches where tendulkar played is 43%. statistically, a tendulkar century has had a greater impact on india's winning chances than centuries made by ponting, kallis, inzimam, etc. on their respective teams' winning chances (brian lara is an exception).
the only argument that would hold water is if tendulkar's centuries have come at an average strike rate of 50-60%. in reality they have come at an average strike rate above 100%. the claims about selfish batting and chasing records at the cost of winning are equally baseless.*
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
i'm shocked by how poorly so many of you understand statistics. the analysis being discussed here is incredibly facile. firstly, century winning percentage is only meaningful relative to the overall team winning percentage. secondly, strike rate is a much more important metric. a proper analysis of these statistics reveals that tendulkar's centuries have been the second highest quality centuries in the world, behind only brian lara's.
i addressed this slanderous and nonsensical myth a year ago in an old post copied below:
*how did this ridiculous assessment become a standard line on gupshup?
a quick look at the numbers reveals that when tendulkar scores a century, india has lost only 27% of those matches. however, india's overall loss percentage in matches where tendulkar played is 43%. statistically, a tendulkar century has had a greater impact on india's winning chances than centuries made by ponting, kallis, inzimam, etc. on their respective teams' winning chances (brian lara is an exception).
the only argument that would hold water is if tendulkar's centuries have come at an average strike rate of 50-60%. in reality they have come at an average strike rate above 100%. the claims about selfish batting and chasing records at the cost of winning are equally baseless.*
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
i'm shocked by how poorly so many of you understand statistics. the analysis being discussed here is incredibly facile. firstly, century winning percentage is only meaningful relative to the overall team winning percentage. secondly, strike rate is a much more important metric. a proper analysis of these statistics reveals that tendulkar's centuries have been the second highest quality centuries in the world amongst star batsmen, behind only brian lara's.
i addressed this slanderous and nonsensical myth a year ago in an old post copied below:
*how did this ridiculous assessment become a standard line on gupshup?
a quick look at the numbers reveals that when tendulkar scores a century, india has lost only 27% of those matches. however, india's overall loss percentage in matches where tendulkar played is 43%. statistically, a tendulkar century has had a greater impact on india's winning chances than centuries made by ponting, kallis, inzimam, etc. on their respective teams' winning chances (brian lara is an exception).
the only argument that would hold water is if tendulkar's centuries have come at an average strike rate of 50-60%. in reality they have come at an average strike rate above 100%. the claims about selfish batting and chasing records at the cost of winning are equally baseless.*
exactly my thoughts...
it's not just 100s there are many quick 70-90s score where he contributed to indian victory..
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
No matter, Sachin will remain a great batsmen, behind Lara, of course. He was never as elegant as Lara, and did not score awfully big in tests as the West Indian legend. A perfectly humble human being, I am sure, on the field and off it, Tendulkar’s name will live on for ever. Top 10 of all time, the best currently playing, massive numbers, and as inspirational a cricketer as they come.
But I won’t even think twice about naming Lara if I had to choose the best batsman I have seen live, and the choices were him and Sachin.
Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?
exactly my thoughts...
it's not just 100s there are many quick 70-90s score where he contributed to indian victory..
that's true. there are many other metrics that can be analyzed but it becomes way too tedious...frequency of being the only batsmen to perform in an innings is one of them. that not only demonstrates how statistically valuable a player is to a team but also indicates ability to handle pressure - something that tendulkar has been falsely accused of not having.
He was never as elegant as Lara, and did not score awfully big in tests as the West Indian legend. A perfectly humble human being, I am sure, on the field and off it, Tendulkar’s name will live on for ever. Top 10 of all time, the best currently playing, massive numbers, and as inspirational a cricketer as they come.