Talk:Sachin Tendulkar

Infobox image

Good For Infobox Perumalism

Edit request on 04th October 2013

Please add Sachin last match score also. He finished his 50000666666 at 5th april , 2013. He is run continued.

Edit request on 011th November 2013

Please recheck Sachin's early domestic carrer. http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/-lsquo-Sachin-Tendulkar-was-convinced-by-Sunil-Gavaskar-to-play-for-Yorkshire-rsquo/32510 Kindly elaborate that it was actually Craig who was supposed to be first overseas player for yorkshire but he suffered groin injury a month before his propose debut which made for Sachin.

Edits required in 'Injuries and decline amid surpassing Bradman's haul'

Some of the statements presented here are too general and unsupported by facts:

Original Paragraph:

During this period from about 2002 to 2006–7, Sendulkar's batting often seemed to be a shadow of its former self. He was inconsistent, and his big knocks mostly came in sedate, accumulative, uncharacteristic fashion. He seemed to have either cut out or lost the ability to play many shots, including the hook and pull and many other aerial strokes. He also developed a tendency to go without scoring much for long periods and become overtly defensive. While players such as Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis were at the peak of their careers, Sachin's seemed to be in terminal decline

Suggested EDIT:

Debate over Tendulkar's decline in form during 2003-2007:

2003- 2007 is perceived as a period where Sachin Tendulkar's career was in a slow decline. This is largely attributed to few important reasons.One of the major reasons for this decline were the career threatening Tennis elbow and Shoulder injury Tendulkar faced in 2005 and 2006 respectively.In Reality Tendulkar continued to a top performer in ODI's during this period(except for 2005) but faced few set backs in tests in 2005 and 2006.However, Tendulkar's changing style and scoring disruption due to injuries coupled with his increasing age, gave the perception that his career was on the decline. In some ways, Tendulkar fell victim to the extraordinary standards he set.

ODI form during 2003-2007

Tendulkar's perceived ODI decline during 2002 to 2007 is something that is totally disproved by statistics. Sachin's average and Strike rate dipped below 40 and 80 respectively only in 2005 and 2006 which were the Tennis Elbow, Shoulder Injury years. In fact in 2006, Tendulkar played a few stellar knocks including 2 hundreds against Pakistan and West Indies. 2007 In fact was one of the most productive years in Tendulkar's ODI Career as a batsman. Tendulkar's performance in the 2003 World Cup is rated as one of his best ever and is a record in the World Cup format for highest runs scored by a Batsman

Test form during 2003-2007

Tendulkar's form dipped in tests only in 2005 and 2006 contrary to popular perception that 2003-2007 were decline years. From 2007 Tendulkar caught a second wind in his career and his 2007 average was 55.42 higher than his career average. The year 2003 too witnessed a low average but can only be seen as an aberration as he played only 5 tests including the highly pressurized India-Australia Series.2003 Australia Tour was a major psychological hurdle for Sachin when leading publications and critics criticized him over his failure in the initial tests. Tendulkar came back with a 241 not out in Sydney which is rated by Brian Lara as the greatest innings from Tendulkar he had seen. The innings is famous for Tendulkar not playing a cover drive, one of the most frequent strokes used by a batsman, till he crossed 200 since this shot led to his downfall in the previous 3 innings.

Change of Style and Role :

The era witnessed a cooling down of the explosive tendulkar post the 2003 world cup with the rise of young aggressive batsmen such as Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh,MS Dhoni,gavaskar. Sachin transitioned his gaming style into more of a sheet anchor role which was a phase of self denial for his fans and critics. This also coincided with the rise of the big 3 -Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman which also contributed to a perception of lower contribution from Sachin as a player. The career threatening injuries- Tennis Elbow-2005, shoulder surgery 2006 also contributed significantly to the change in playing style from an aggressor to an Adapter. However this too would change in the years to come.

—

Edit request

In 2009-2010 period when sachin got on 5,6,7 with lbw decisions. all these decision was wrong decision given by the umpires.Kindly make the note of that on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.186.58 (talk)

I don't understand what you'd like us to change. Could you explain? --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

'Widely regarded as the greatest batsmen of all time'

Please reword this. This is completely ridiculous. How can this page possibly suggest that Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time when Bradman's average of 99.94 is 'often cited as the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport'. Just change the sentence to 'widely considered ONE of the greatest batsman of all time'. The 'sources' used to support the claim of Tendulkar's #1 status are also completely worthless (how can an opinion piece in a newspaper be considered authoritative?).

A few weeks, ago, before I changed it, yet again, to "widely regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time", it said he was widely regarded as the greatest cricketer of all time! Now it has been changed, yet again, to once again claim - erroneously - that he is widely considered to be the greatest batsman of all time. I have updated it, yet again, to say "one of the greatest batsmen of all time". Obviously he was a great batsman, and it's wonderful that he has so many fans, but it's doing a disservice to him, to cricket, and to Wikipedia, when people keep updating the article to make outrageous, completely unsupported claims. Those of us who 'work' on Wikipedia want it to be respected and regarded as a reliable source of information. However there are still many people out there who don't trust it and this issue with the Tendulkar lede is exactly the reason why. We're not here to push our own agendas and opinions; we're here to try to present the truth. Can people please stop updating this article with unsupported claims? At least have the courage and courtesy to come here and debate the topic before making sweeping claims in future... FillsHerTease (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The article was modified to once again claim that he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time. I undid the edit as it is not supported by the sources and messaged the user who made the change as follows:

"Please stop vandalizing the Sachin Tendulkar page. He is not widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time but - much more importantly - even if he was, the sources do not support the claim. Statements made in Wikipedia articles need to have sources to back them up. There is no source quoted which states that Sachin Tendulkar is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time. If you want the article to say that then you need to find some reliable sources to quote. A section on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page was started where you can go to discuss this issue. Please respond to me there; this message is simply to let you know that your unsupported edit was undone. Thanks and Regards," FillsHerTease (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The following two comments come from my personal Talk Page:

"Hey there, Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time considered by many great crickets, experts and fans. Whether it is poll or comments or other, the winner was Sachin. Well thank you. Wikipedia wants proper sources, okay then I will add proper reference/source to the article. Then don't remove or revert. And about vandalism, I've not done any kind of vandalism. I came in Wikipedia juat because of some wrong informations of some pages." ARNAB22 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"As per my private message to you - which I sent to you as a courtesy - please do not reply to me here. A section has been started on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page and all communication regarding this topic should occur there. Thanks and Regards," FillsHerTease (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you about who the greatest batsman of all time is because our opinions on the matter are completely and utterly irrelevant. As explained - several times now - there is no source which supports the claim that Sachin Tendulkar is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time and the lack of sources is the only issue here. You have changed the article - several times now - to say that he is the greatest batsman of all time but you have provided no sources to support the claim, nor have you even provided a short explanation of the reason you have made an edit. I'm sorry but that is vandalism. You cannot keep updating a page to suit your own personal opinion; that is bad for everyone. I'm not trying to insult you, or single you out, but you have done the same thing on the Ronaldo page and you have been warned about vandalism there too. If your claim is correct then you should have no trouble finding several reliable sources to support it. In the mean time, please stop vandalising the page by making unsupported edits and keep all communication here on the Talk Page. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, FillsHerTease. You're right – ARNAB22's edits are clearly disruptive and bordering on vandalism, given the warnings they've had. I'll be keeping a close eye on things, and any further disruptive editing should be reported. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, he is the greatest batsman of all time and I've added proper sources also and many considered he is greater than Sir Don Bradman. But you revert the article and remove the two sources. Why? Recover those. Once somebody says it the source doesn't prove that he is the greatest batsman. But I did the right thing with correct source. ARNAB22 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User ARNAB22 (talk) has updated the page to say Sachin Tendulkar "is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time" once again. He (or she???) has not provided sources which support this claim. I undid the edit and left the following message on the user's Talk Page. Please note that (s)he had not made the above edit to the Talk Page here until after I had left my own message. As such, my claim that (s)he had not used the Talk Page here is incorrect and I apologise for that. Nonetheless, ARNAB22 (talk) MUST NOT UPDATE THE SACHIN TENDULKAR ARTICLE AGAIN WITHOUT FIRST DISCUSSING THE MATTER HERE AND GETTING AGREEMENT ON THE PROPOSED CHANGE. FillsHerTease (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This issue has become very serious.

1. You have been asked, several times now - courteously and politely; albeit firmly - to stop updating the Sachin Tendulkar article to say that "he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", without providing reliable sources to support the claim.

2. You have been instructed that there is a section on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page where this issue can and should be discussed.

3. You have been told that you need to include text which indicates why you are changing an article.

4. You have been warned by other editors regarding similar, unsupported and undocumented updates that you have made to other articles.

Nonetheless you have - yet again - updated the Sachin Tendulkar to say that "he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", without providing reliable sources to support the claim. Your unsupported update has once again been removed.

DO NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - UPDATE THE SACHIN TENDULKAR ARTICLE AGAIN WITHOUT FIRST:

1. Discussing the issue on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page. It is clear that you do not understand certain things and, as such, a discussion needs to take place so that you can become acquainted with the way things work. You MUST NOT update the Sachin Tendulkar article again unless you have discussed the matter and the proposed update has been agreed to.

2. Do not reply to me here, or on my personal Talk Page. All communication should take place on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page.

I am sorry to be so blunt but this is an important issue. You are updating Wikipedia to include a statement - a very serious statement - which is not supported. This unsupported claim is not just read by people who come to Wikipedia itself, it is visible in other places too, such as the infobox which appears to the right if someone performs a Google search for Sachin Tendulkar. Please try to understand the ramifications of what you are doing. Your unsupported claims do not only do a massive disservice to Wikipedia - helping to propagate the false belief that it is unreliable as a source of information - they do a disservice to you, to cricket, to Sachin Tendulkar, and to the other great batsman of history. It's wonderful that you so admire Sachin Tendulkar - yes, he was an incredible batsman - but you need to understand and acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a platform for you to propagate your own personal opinions. You have been provided every opportunity to discuss the matter on the Talk Page, but you have completely failed to engage with anyone about the issue. You have been told that your updates will be agreed to if you can find reliable sources to support them, but you have gone ahead and made changes without providing such sources. I am once again giving you the opportunity to come and discuss the issue so please - PLEASE - stop vandalising the page and engage with us about what you are trying to do. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to the message above from ARNAB22 (talk):

"Hello, he is the greatest batsman of all time and I've added proper sources also and many considered he is greater than Sir Don Bradman. But you revert the article and remove the two sources. Why? Recover those. Once somebody says it the source doesn't prove that he is the greatest batsman. But I did the right thing with correct source."

1. "...he is the greatest batsman of all time..." - No, he isn't. As I said I am not going to argue about this with you because our personal opinions are irrelevant here. If you want to sit down, have a beer, and discuss our opinions on the matter then, sure, I'd be all for it. What you need to understand though is that our opinions are not relevant to the article and that's why you need to stop changing it.

2. "...I've added proper sources..." - No, you haven't provided proper sources. That is the issue here, and it is the only issue. You are changing the article to say that "he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time". Where, in the sources you have provided, does it say anything even remotely close to that? Nowhere. When you say someone is widely considered to be the greatest in history at something it means you are talking about the general consensus. That, quite simply, isn't true of Sachin Tendulkar.

3. "...and many considered he is greater than Sir Don Bradman..." - Some people - not many - believe he is greater than Bradman. Some people think it's Lara. Bradman never played one day cricket, so some people consider Bradman to be the greatest Test batsman and Viv Richards to be the greatest one day batsman. However when you say "widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time" it basically refers to the general consensus and the general consensus is that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time. As pointed out above, at the beginning of this section, Bradman is not only widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time, he is considered by some to be the greatest sportsman - in any sport - of all time. To support the claim that Tendulkar "is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", you need to provide several sources which say that; you can't just supply a couple of sources in which there's a discussion about Bradman versus Tendulkar and transform those into him be considered the greatest. Do you understand? I mean ... I haven't pointed this out before but a couple of the source which you are referring to actually claim that Bradman is greater than Tendulkar, yet you are trying to use them to say the exact opposite!

4. "But you revert the article and remove the two sources. Why?" Well ... this has been explained to you over and over again. I undid your edit because the sources you supplied do not support the claim you are making. Having said all that, I didn't mean to remove your sources so I apologise for that. I only meant to get rid of your erroneous, unsupported claim that "...he is the greatest batsman of all time...".

5. "Recover those". No I will not. DO NOT UPDATE THE ARTICLE AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE LOCATED SOURCES WHICH SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM AND THE CHANGE HAS BEEN AGREED TO HERE VIA A DISCUSSION. As I have said all along, I am happy for you to make the change as long as you can provide sources which support it.

6. "Once somebody says it the source doesn't prove that he is the greatest batsman". Sorry but I don't understand what you mean?

7. "But I did the right thing with correct source". No, you didn't. You did not supply sources which support the claim that "he is widely regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time". I realise that you think your sources support the claim but they don't. That is why you need to discuss the matter here before you make any further changes please. OK?

Listen ... I am not trying to discourage a new editor; that is why I am not reporting you or trying to get you blocked. I think that the more people who come to Wikipedia and help the better. The problem, I think, is that you don't quite understand how it works and you perhaps don't understand - because English isn't your first language - what "widely regarded as the greatest batsmen of all time" actually means. Please - PLEASE - I am not trying to insult you when I say that. I say - in all honesty - that I just want to make sure that an unsupported claim isn't made. I am happy to discuss the matter with you and try to come to an agreement. I don't want to fight with you, or discourage you, or make you look bad, or anything like that. I mean that honestly and sincerely and I hope I am clear about that. Fair enough?

:-)

Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I returned the two new sources which were added. These were deleted during the undo of the previous unsupported claim. As noted above, neither of these two new sources support the claim that Sachin Tendulkar is "widely regarded as the greatest batsmen of all time". FillsHerTease (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay you can update anything, all the sources sounds like "the greatest batsman" but you can edit anything. Add or remove the reference that had updated before. :/ And sorry for my argument. ARNAB22 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ARNAB22 (talk). I'm sorry about that very long post and I'm sorry to have been so blunt. My main reason is the fact that the Sachin Tendulkar page is very popular and, as I mentioned, that first sentence if often used as a brief description by other pages; so it's very important that the first sentence is correct, more so than the rest of the article. If that makes sense? Listen ... as I said above I am honestly not trying to discourage you, or single you out, or anything negative; I think it's great that you have decided to get a username and start making changes to articles. The more people that do that the better it is for everyone. So ... from the perspective of wanting to help you, do you understand what the problem is with what you've been trying to do? I sincerely don't want to argue with you; I want to help you understand what the problem is so that you can keep editing articles and enjoy being part of the Wikipedia family. If you want to have a discussion on your Talk Page about it, or mine, rather than here then we can do that if you like? Whatever is best for you? FillsHerTease (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Just for the record - and so you understand that I'm not necessarily against what you're trying to do - I think there are a lot of valid arguments for saying that Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time. As I said, I would love to sit down, have a beer, and discuss it all with you. However we always have to remember - when editing on Wikipedia - that our own personal opinions are not relevant. As I have said all along, if you can find some sources which support what you want to write then I will join with you and fight at your side. Fair enough? I have looked for some myself but can't find any. Maybe we can come up with a new sentence that is mid-way between "widely regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time" and "widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time"? I mean, we could say "considered by some modern experts to be the greatest batsman of all time", or "regarded by many as the greatest batsman of the modern era". There are a lot of options. Why don't we put our thinking caps on, have a conversation together, and come up with a sentence which puts Sachin in the place he deserves; whilst being supported by the sources? A compromise! What do you say?

:-)

FillsHerTease (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe English Grammar Issue

Hello,

At the start of the page, it is mentioned that Sachin Tendulkar is regarded as one of the greatest BATSMAN of all time. The word BATSMAN is absolutely illogical is this context as current context suggests more than a few BATSMEN who are considered to be included in greatest category.

The word BATSMAN must be replaced with BATSMEN.

Thank you!!

Good pickup! Thank you. I have updated the article accordingly. FillsHerTease (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)