Debunking the 'Sachin Tendulkar not a match-winner' myth

Sachin Tendulkar

When you look back at the illustrious career of Sachin Tendulkar, you will have to use your magnifying glass to find chinks in his armour. In case that doesn’t work, you have to resort to using a microscope. You shouldn’t be surprised if the result still yields nothing. The proverb ‘finding needles in a haystack’ is not for nothing. The fact that a player of his stature has hardly courted a controversy in 24 years of international cricket is as appalling as his list of centuries; add to it, the fact that he owns virtually every batting record worth owning makes the haystack as big as the Eiffel Tower, and needles as small as a mustard seed.

Perhaps, the only topics that remain up for discussion are that a lot of his hundreds came in losing causes and that he did not play when it mattered. Strange to say that he did not play when it mattered when stats say that he is literally the best. But more on that later.

Let us have a look at these points in two aspects: statistical and analytical.

An analytical explanation is provided at first. If you still do not agree, a statistical explanation follows that, as well. There is a common belief that statistics do not give the correct picture. However, I have a firm belief they do, if analyzed in the correct manner. In any case, both the aspects have been taken into account.

A) Tendulkar and Hundreds

#1 Tendulkar and Test Hundreds

The very basis of the argument that India always lost when Tendulkar scored a hundred is flawed. When a player scores a century, more often than not, he would be the best player in that innings. You simply cannot blame the player who played out of his skin, for a loss. The only logical explanation for this argument is that Tendulkar played slowly in LOIs, and hence Team India lost, which would be disproved later in this piece, anyway.

But let us first start with Tests.

Imagine that there was a bad king. He did nothing for his kingdom. One day, the minister had enough. He tried to make the kingdom a better place to live in. He did all the hard work, bore the burden of the kingdom but, in the end, failed to bring about a change. The people blamed the minister for failing and said nothing about the bad king.

This story makes any sense to you?

Sachin Tendulkar scores a 100. India loses a Test match. This is, for some godforsaken reason, is synonymous with ‘Sachin Tendulkar scores a century, and hence India loses the Test match’.

What is Tendulkar’s fault in Tests if his century is in a losing cause? It’s like Usain Bolt running the fastest among a four member team in a relay, and, if it still was not enough, he is to take the blame for the defeat. If the bowlers did not back him up, it is hardly his fault that the team lost, unless there was the expectation that he should have bowled his leggies and taken a couple of hat-tricks.

A Test match can be won only when 20 wickets are taken. A batsman can hardly be blamed if the bowling team fails to do so. The fact that 20 Test matches have ended in a draw when this little man had scored a century is also proof of the fact that he has done what is realistically possible with the bat: snatched a draw from the jaws of defeat. Let us look at a few of these.

1. His very first Test hundred, a fighting one at Old Trafford, in which he came to bat at 109 for 4, with 4 hours still left to play, is a testament of the fact. He lost two other wickets pretty early down the road, but held on to prevent an obvious loss.
2. The fighting 111 against South Africa in Johannesburg, 1992, when the second-highest score by an Indian was 25 and 43, first and second innings respectively, in the match.
3. His 126 along with Rahul Dravid’s 144 in the second essay, at Chandigarh, 1999, when India had folded for 83 in the first innings.
4. Having conceded a lead of 139 to West Indies in Eden Gardens, India were tottering at 11-2 when Tendulkar came in to bat. Soon it became 49-3 and 87-4. The Master Blaster combined with VVS Laxman to stitch together a 214-run partnership and take the match beyond the realm of defeat.

Coming to losses, how can a player who has played out of his skin be blamed for the loss? As stated earlier, the brunt of the defeat has to be borne by the bowlers. A way of explaining this is as follows:

The average runs conceded by the Australian bowlers while Ricky Ponting batted for them was 28.96. The corresponding figure for Indian bowlers with Tendulkar in the side was 35.35. In other words, in an innings when 10 wickets fell, Australian bowlers conceded around 70 runs less. In two innings of a Test, the figure is close to 140 (safe to assume in a losing cause the 10 wickets would have fallen more often than not). Assuming Tendulkar had those bowlers, it would have changed the outcome from defeats to victories.

A very simple table can show to an extent what was Tendulkar’s contribution, and what was the other team members’ contribution. Bear in mind that this is equivalent to a fool’s errand, as he has to be among the top most scorers if he is scoring a 100. The second highest scores are bound to surprise you, though.

Match Details	Tendulkar’s Score	Highest Score in the Match by an Indian	2nd Highest score in the match in case of Tendulkar having the highest score
India v/s Australia	114	114	38
India v/s England	122	122	52 (by Javagal Srinath)
India v/s South Africa	169	169	115
India v/s Australia	177	177	74
India v/s New Zealand	113	113	103
India v/s Pakistan	136	136	54
India v/s Australia	116	116	52 (by Tendulkar himself) else 45
India v/s South Africa	155	155	105
India v/s Australia	154	154	109
India v/s South Africa	100	109 (The first time someone scored more than him)
India v/s South Africa	111	111	80

This table proves the exact opposite: In the matches India lost when Tendulkar had scored a century, it was the team’s contribution that was lacking, and the Master was waging a lonely battle. If anything, this proves the greatness of the champion player rather than the fact that he was found wanting. He was the second-highest scorer only once and, at times, was miles ahead of the second-most scorer.

Is it Tendulkar’s fault that he shone when others faltered?

Let us, for a minute, assume that this criterion of evaluating the percentage of centuries in winning causes to the overall figure is correct. This would mean that Tendulkar, who has a winning percentage of 39.22, is not a better batsman than Ian Bell, Graeme Smith, Thilan Samaraweera, Ashwell Prince and even Simon Katich!

Also, it would mean the above mentioned players are better than Sir Gary Sobers, Brian Lara, Micheal Clarke and Ian Botham.

And this would make Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar, Martin Crowe and Hanif Mohammed the worst players of all time!

Still think this method of evaluating a player is correct?

The fact that these players scored centuries when others could not get their bat on ball shows that they were in weaker sides and just too good. For some unknown reason, it is taken to be the other way round!

Do you now still feel it was Tendulkar’s fault that India lost when he scored a century?

#2 Tendulkar and ODI Hundreds

Since we have already discussed about how scoring 100s when others fail is a mark of greatness and not of failure, we shall address the other question here: strike-rate. There is a school of thought that Tendulkar played slowly, and hence India lost matches that they should have rather won. But, before we get to it, let us look at some facts.

1. In One Day internationals, 33 of Tendulkar's 48 hundreds have come in winning causes, while 13 have come in losing causes and two in matches that yielded no result. This means more than double of the hundreds that have come as losses have come in victories.

2. His 33 hundreds in victories are more than 2nd placed Ricky Ponting’s career haul of 29 centuries.

3. He has 62 Man-of-the-match awards, 14 ahead of Jayasuriya who is next.

4. He averaged more than 56 in team wins, at a strike rate of 90. Among those who scored at least 5000 runs in wins, only Lara and Viv Richards have higher averages.

Batsman	Innings	Runs	Average	Strike rate	100s/ 50s
Brian Lara	134	6553	61.82	86.32	16/ 42
Viv Richards	114	5129	56.98	93.01	11/ 32
Sachin Tendulkar	231	11,157	56.63	90.31	33/ 59
Mohammad Yousuf	151	6426	55.87	78.59	14/ 41
Sourav Ganguly	147	6938	55.06	77.87	18/ 41
Michael Clarke	134	5084	52.95	80.62	4/ 42

?Now let us address the strike-rate issue. A simple way to do so would be to compare it with the overall strike-rate of the team apart from Tendulkar. There can be a counter argument that Tendulkar’s slow rate caused the other players to throw their wicket. In our defence, the second-highest Indian centurion is Sourav Ganguly who has less than half the hundreds as Tendulkar. So, chances of another player going on to score a century are a bit rare.

Following is the table of Tendulkar’s hundreds in ODIs in a lost cause, along with the other parameters needed to be judged.

Opponent	Tendulkar’s Score	Tendulkar’s Strike Rate	Highest Score in the Match by an Indian	2nd Highest score in the match in case of Sachin having the highest	Strike Rate of the Rest of the Team	Difference in Strike Rate of Tendulkar and the Team. (Figures in brackets are negatives) (Column III-Column VI) (%)
Sri Lanka	137	100.00	137	72	66.26	33.74
Pakistan	100	90.09	100	41	63.42	26.66
Sri Lanka	110	79.71	110	58	60.60	19.10
Australia	143	109.16	143	35	63.76	45.40
Sri Lanka	101	72.14	101	35	63.85	8.28
Zimbabwe	146	95.42	146	32	80.27	15.15
South Africa	101	78.29	127	N/a	92.65	(14.36)
Pakistan	141	104.44	141	37 (extras) else 36	80.81	23.63
Pakistsn	123	94.61	123	47	82.70	11.91
Pakistan	100	88.49	100	68	110.99	(22.50)
West Indies	141	95.27	141	64	84.47	10.80
Australia	175	124.11	175	59	96.88	27.23
South Africa	111	109.90	111	73	88.54	21.36
Bangladesh	114	77.55	114	66	101.30	(23.74)
Grand Total						182.66

Since the conditions for each match is the same for any batsman, this is a perfect way to compare Tendulkar and the others. In the 14 ODI innings that Tendulkar has scored a century in a losing cause, his strike-rate has been higher than that of the team on 11 occasions, and only thrice below that of the team. This is even before considering the fact that Tendulkar was an opener and, the higher the runs an opener scores, that his strike-rate tends to go further down. Also, he opened the innings and had to face the extensively swinging white ball. 3 innings in all, and that made people jump to the conclusion that he played slowly and for himself. Is there really any truth to it, after reading these stats?

B) Tendulkar and ‘Big’ match performances

#1 Tendulkar and World Cups

It is really funny that a few of Tendulkar’s innings are generalised and taken to be the norm, though they are nothing more than aberrations. It is actually the exact opposite: Not only was he good in crunch matches, but he was the best ever, statistically at least! Surprised? But more on that in a while. Still feel that Tendulkar did not play when it mattered? Let us find where Tendulkar stands in a tournament that mattered the most: The World Cup.

The fact that he did not score in two of the World Cup finals he played in made people point out that he was not a big match player. Isn’t any World Cup match a big match, anyway? People also fail to realise that it was actually Tendulkar who got them the rights even to play those ‘big’ matches. Let us take a look at some of his World Cup exploits.

• His overall tally of 2278 runs is a record for World Cups.
• He is the only batsman to score more than 500 runs in two separate World Cups.
• His tally of 673 in 2003 is a record for most runs in a single World Cup.
• His 9 man-of-the-matches is the highest for any player, 3 more than Glenn McGrath at second place.
• His average of 56.95 in World Cups is next only to Sir Vivian Richards among those to score 1000+ runs in World Cups.
• His 6 hundreds are the most by any batsman.
• He has the highest strike-rate for players who have scored more than 1000 runs in World Cups.

Highest averages among batsmen with 1000+ runs in World Cups

Batsman	Innings	Runs	Average	Strike rate	100s/ 50s
Viv Richards	21	1013	63.31	85.05	3/ 5
Sachin Tendulkar	44	2278	56.95	88.98	6/ 15
Herschelle Gibbs	23	1067	56.15	87.38	2/ 8
Sourav Ganguly	21	1006	55.88	77.50	4/ 3
Mark Waugh	22	1004	52.84	83.73	4/ 4
Jacques Kallis	32	1148	45.92	74.40	1/ 9
Ricky Ponting	42	1743	45.86	79.95	5/ 6
Javed Miandad	30	1083	43.32	68.02	1/ 8
Brian Lara	33	1225	42.24	86.26	2/ 7

#2 Tendulkar and Tournament finals

Assuming this just about settles the topic, let us now move on to our final comparison: Tendulkar and tournament finals. We divide this discussion into two parts:

1. Tendulkar’s tournament finals stats against his overall stats.
2. Tendulkar’s tournament finals stats and those of other batsmen to play over 20 finals.

Tendulkar’s tournament finals stats against his overall stats

Tendulkar was a much, much better player when he played in tournament finals as opposed to the rest of his career. He had a 20% higher average than his normal average, a marginally better strike-rate and scored a hundred once in every 6.67 games as opposed to once in 8.90 games in his overall career. It could be attributed to the difference in sample space, but it does show he delivers on the big occasions. He did indeed have a major slump in finals from 1999-2004, but Tendulkar, as we know, is a student of the game, and learned this quickly, as well. His overall figures in finals and his career figures are as follows:

	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
Overall	463	452	41	18426	200*	44.83	21367	86.23	49	96	20	2016	195
In finals	40	39	5	1851	138	54.44	2111	87.68	6	10	4	179	21

Tendulkar’s tournament finals stats and those of other batsmen

Tendulkar has the highest batting average among all those having played more than 25 tournament finals. along with having the highest number of centuries and most scores above 50. This simply reiterates one fact: he was the not only at his very best in the finals but also the best in the world, poles apart from the common adage that he was not good at it at all.

The following table will help put matters in perspective.

Player	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
SR Tendulkar (India)	40	39	5	1851	138	54.44	2111	87.68	6	10	4	179	21
DM Jones (Aus)	30	30	8	1064	102*	48.36	1455	73.12	1	8	1	61	12
DR Martyn (Aus)	25	20	7	611	88*	47.00	833	73.34	0	6	0	44	4
ST Jayasuriya (SL)	39	39	1	1613	189	42.44	1640	98.35	2	13	5	181	32
MS Atapattu (SL)	26	26	2	969	132*	40.37	1384	70.01	2	6	1	93	2
KC Sangakkara (SL)	27	27	1	1023	83	39.34	1378	74.23	0	11	1	92	5
RT Ponting (Aus)	41	40	5	1345	140*	38.42	1636	82.21	2	7	2	104	20
DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	32	31	2	1103	103*	38.03	1338	82.43	1	10	4	95	7
AC Gilchrist (Aus)	33	33	2	1163	149	37.51	1133	102.64	3	6	2	143	20
SC Ganguly (India)	31	29	2	1000	124	37.03	1445	69.20	3	4	0	95	14
AR Border (Aus)	38	37	8	1057	127*	36.44	1442	73.30	1	4	0	74	5
M Azharuddin (India)	30	27	3	823	90*	34.29	1015	81.08	0	6	2	52	6
ME Waugh (Aus)	32	32	2	961	173	32.03	1185	81.09	2	4	2	82	3
Saeed Anwar (Pak)	29	29	0	914	140	31.51	1121	81.53	2	4	1	95	12
Ijaz Ahmed (Pak)	28	27	3	750	117	31.25	1077	69.63	1	4	3	61	4
Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak)	35	33	3	887	91	29.56	1285	69.02	0	7	3	69	9
SR Waugh (Aus)	40	32	6	768	71	29.53	1039	73.91	0	6	0	46	7

There it is then. Some very common misconceptions, when analysed statistically and deeply, tell a very different story, thus proving that those little chinks people saw in the armour were nothing more than specks of dust after all.