First things first. Ricky Ponting, in the above charts, has played in 204 wins against top ODI teams and 89 defeats. Adam Gilchrist's record is even more impressive - 158 wins and 52 defeats. Mathew Hayden, 91 wins and only 28 defeats. Jacques Kallis has played in 165 wins and 94 defeats. By contrast, Tendulkar, Lara, Sehwag, Ganguly and Jayasurya have all played in fewer wins than defeats. And yet, Jayasurya has a better record in wins than Gilchrist, Lara has a better record than Kallis and Ponting, Ganguly and Sehwag a better one than Hayden, and Tendulkar possibly has the best record of them all. In fact, it seems as though the players who have played in weaker teams (i.e. in teams that have won less) have been more important to their teams winning, than the players who have played in strong teams like Australia and SA.
Since he started opening the batting in 1994, Tendulkar has made a century in every 6th India win against a top Test playing team, and a half century in every other Indian win. Only Lara comes close - making a century in every 8th West Indies win, and a half century in every other. Tendulkar's record in India's defeats (12 centuries, 25 fifties in 138 defeats) is nearly as good as Gilchrist's record in victories! I have added his record over the last 5 years, just to show that this hasn't changed recently. India have won more (35-30 in the last 5 years, as opposed to 125-138 over the last 17, when Tendulkar has played), but Tendulkar's contribution has remained steady. He has had one problem. Of his 12 half centuries, 8 have been 90s. These include 3 scores of 99, a 97, a 96, a 94, a 93 and a 91. Tendulkar has played three tournament finals in the last 5 years, and his scores in those have been 138, 117 not out and 91. India have won all three.
Not the record of one who doesn't make runs when it matters. The problem of the 90s suggests that Tendulkar would do well to take the great Gavaskar's advice seriously. I don't use the word great for Gavaskar in jest, he really is one of the great batsmen of all time. For Tendulkar making 110 is always better than Tendulkar making 95, superstitions notwithstanding.
Compared to the top Australians and Kallis, Tendulkar has had nowhere to hide. Gilchrist averaging 40 has been enough for Australia to win, but for India to win, Tendulkar has had to average over 60. There is no comparison between the top Australians and Tendulkar or Lara. Those two are in a different class.
Tendulkar himself is a modest man. Over the years, the most I've heard him say is "One has to keep trying". That, a fair minded individual free of psycho-pharmacological assistance should agree, is something Tendulkar does better than anybody else
Bookmarks