Tendulkar vs Amarnath

[ret]

Interesting thought came to my mind as to the selection of Tendulkar vs Amarnath. I don't remember the exact details but, iirc, it was Tendulkar who was selected and Amarnath, who was dropped .... Imran Khan had probably said that he would never drop a player like Amarnath!!!

It's interesting too see how this would have been debated if this forum was available then. So let's go back in time, and assume that the Indian team is being selected for the 1989 tour and it's Amarnath vs Tendulkar [much like its Dravid, Kumble, etc vs a youngster coming into the Indian team] .... whom would you pick, the experienced and bankable Amarnath or the 16 years old kid

 

[Richard]

Impossible IMO. Those very few who were watching with close attention might just remember their feelings, but then again, they might have been distorted by the sands of time.

Anyone who wasn't around at the time can't really say for certain what their reaction would've been. Most people on this forum remember Tendulkar only as a mature batsman of brilliance, and cannot really be expected to fully comprehend the schoolboy phenomena that he was.

My guess - and that's all it can be, a guess - at mine would've been "FFS, how stupid to pick a 16-year-old for Test cricket". Tendulkar, of course, didn't do particularly well in 1989/90 and it wasn't until the Old Trafford Test of 1990, with a match double of 68 and 119*, that he finally reached a stage where he could crack it. Even then he was just 17, which was remarkable enough.

 

[silentstriker]

Interesting thought came to my mind as to the selection of Tendulkar vs Amarnath. I don't remember the exact details but, iirc, it was Tendulkar who was selected and Amarnath, who was dropped .... Imran Khan had probably said that he would never drop a player like Amarnath!!!

It's interesting too see how this would have been debated if this forum was available then. So let's go back in time, and assume that the Indian team is being selected for the 1989 tour and it's Amarnath vs Tendulkar [much like its Dravid, Kumble, etc vs a youngster coming into the Indian team] .... whom would you pick, the experienced and bankable Amarnath or the 16 years old kid

First, picking Tendulkar at 16 was stupid. Second, how about I name 50 players who didn't work out?

 

[ret]

the Q is whom would you pick: Tendulkar or Amarnath?

i guess that those who said that picking Tendulkar was stupid, would have gone for Amarnath .... Or would you have picked anyone else?

 

[Richard]

I don't know enough about the alternatives to know whether I'd have picked Armanath or someone else, but I do know I'd not have picked Tendulkar, and I think his initial results in 1989/90 show why. 16-year-olds just cannot possibly be expected to be up to international cricket, however good they may one day become.

 

[silentstriker]

the Q is whom would you pick: Tendulkar or Amarnath?

i guess that those who said that picking Tendulkar was stupid, would have gone for Amarnath .... Or would you have picked anyone else?

Tendulkar did not have enough FC experience to warrant his selection. Same with Kambli, Tendulkar probably should have been picked around that time, at 18-20 years of age, with 4-5 years of FC cricket by that time. I think Kambli was picked around 1991.

As for Amarnath, I was five years old, so I am not sure who else was available and how Amarnath was doing at the time to give you an educated answer.

 

[ret]

Tendulkar did not have enough FC experience to warrant his selection. Same with Kambli, Tendulkar probably should have been picked around that time, at 18-20 years of age, with 4-5 years of FC cricket by that time. I think Kambli was picked around 1991.

As for Amarnath, I was five years old, so I am not sure who else was available and how Amarnath was doing at the time to give you an educated answer.

you can't give an answer on Amarnath but you can definitely say 'no' to Tendulkar's selection

 

[silentstriker]

you can't give an answer on Amarnath but you can definitely say 'no' to Tendulkar's selection

Because I know he didn't have a lot of FC experience. You can't pick people based on that. India have tried before, and it has almost always failed. Out of the five youngest players to be picked, four have failed. You can't pick people before they have a chance to get used to the rigors of professional every day high quality cricket and before they know their own game.

 

[honestbharani]

you can't give an answer on Amarnath but you can definitely say 'no' to Tendulkar's selection

The theory is that only 1 out of a 50 tries will work out when you are thrusting a 16 year old to international cricket...

 

[ret]

I don't know enough about the alternatives to know whether I'd have picked Armanath or someone else, but I do know I'd not have picked Tendulkar, and I think his initial results in 1989/90 show why. 16-year-olds just cannot possibly be expected to be up to international cricket, however good they may one day become.

so are you assuming that someone else would have done better than that in his first year or so

 

[ret]

The theory is that only 1 out of a 50 tries will work out when you are thrusting a 16 year old to international cricket...

who proposed that theory?

 

[silentstriker]

You can't pick an isolated incident and use it to put forward a theory. Create a list of all players who debuted before their 19th birthday and look at their careers.

It will especially be galling considering those were considered to be the best and the brightest in the country. You'll be surprised how many were ruined forever.

 

[ret]

You can't pick an isolated incident and use it to put forward a theory. Create a list of all players who debuted before their 19th birthday and look at their careers.

It will especially be galling considering those were considered to be the best and the brightest in the country. You'll be surprised how many were ruined forever.

this is not just about age but a new player vs someone past his best .... you can think of many examples of players who have done decently in their first year or so

 

[silentstriker]

this is not just about age but a new player vs someone past his best .... you can think of many examples of players who have done decently in their first year or so

No, this is about experience. We are talking about Tendulkar. I wouldn't have picked him because he didn't have enough time to learn his trade and prove himself at FC levels yet. It's not about doing well in your first year.

 

[ret]

No, this is about experience. We are talking about Tendulkar. I wouldn't have picked him because he didn't have enough time to learn his trade and prove himself at FC levels yet. It's not about doing well in your first year.

so are you implying is that you will pick a youngster hoping to make an immediate impact in the game/series he plays, and if he does you will probably continue with him? .... and are you assuming that those who do well in FC usually do well in tests?

 

[Richard]

so are you assuming that someone else would have done better than that in his first year or so

No, I'm assuming that someone else would've done better than he did in his first 8 matches.

And that's a fair assumption.

 

[ret]

No, I'm assuming that someone else would've done better than he did in his first 8 matches.

And that's a fair assumption.

why first 8 games and not 10 or 11 or 12? .... and who would have done better than that, Amarnath?

fyi, Tendulkars first 8 games are better than Amarnath's last 9 games

 

[Richard]

so are you implying is that you will pick a youngster hoping to make an immediate impact in the game/series he plays, and if he does you will probably continue with him?

That should be the idea for any selection for any player, any time.

If you do not believe a player will make an impact in the game you are proposing to pick him for, you have made an error in picking him. If you pick a player and he does not perform over a short "trial" period, then you should leave him out (presuming there's someone else with a case to play instead). If you pick a player and he performs, you keep picking him for as long as he continues to perform.

16-year-olds don't often make any impact in international cricket and Tendulkar was no different. He was 17 before he made any impact - and even then this is for one of the most exceptional players ever.

Hardly any "normal" player will have any chance whatsoever of success in international cricket before the age of 20 or so. Many it'd be even older - 22 or 23.

But you should never, ever pick someone for a match now in the belief that he'll be good enough to play in a year, or 3 years', time. Any such selection is a poor one.

 

[Richard]

why first 8 games and not 10 or 11 or 12?

Because it was his 9th game that Tendulkar became a Test-class batsman. I'd not have picked him even then, actually, but it turns-out wouldn't have done him any harm to have played from the England tour in 1990 onwards. Not playing when you're good enough can't hurt anyone; playing when you're not good enough always hurts any player, and his team as well.

.... and who would have done better than that, Amarnath?

fyi, Tendulkars first 8 games are better than Amarnath's last 9 games

Good. Maybe someone other than Armanath should've played then. India aren't often short of high-calibre batsmen. But I'd never have picked a 16-year-old, even if he had broken every schoolboy record going.

 

[silentstriker]

and are you assuming that those who do well in FC usually do well in tests?

I am assuming people who haven't proven themselves in FC will do worse than those who have, as a general rule.

so are you implying is that you will pick a youngster hoping to make an immediate impact in the game/series he plays, and if he does you will probably continue with him? ....

Huh?