Talk:Sachin Tendulkar/Archive 1

message: This page could do with a bit of editing I think. It's not very encylopaedic (referring to Tendulkar by his given name throughout, for example), has a lot of repetition of information and some conflicting information. I'll have a stab at tightening it up myself, but if someone else wants to go ahead and do it first then that would be cool! --Lancevortex 11:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: I think his middle name is Romesh and not Ramesh. Please confirm even though it is given as Ramesh in Cricinfo Doctor Bruno 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramesh should be the spelling as he hails from Maharashtra - it is the most widely used spelling for the word in India. The spelling Romesh would be used by people in Bengal. --Gurubrahma 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramesh or Romesh

message: Why was the following line removed.
It was a love marriage, despite his wife being a few years older than Sachin.
What is wrong in telling that it is a love marriage and also his wife's age
Doctor Bruno 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Life

message: Since Man of the Series is a notable achievement (only one player per world cup), that has been added in the Achievement Doctor Bruno 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Achievements

message: I think the opening para is heavily biased, hardly encyclopedic and not informative. All this glorification should probably go to the end. Couple of highlights or records he holds might not be out of place. Changed it to sound better. - Cribananda
-J
: Much better, thank you. Stephen Turner 10:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eulogical Opening Paragraph 

message: Answers for the previous post
:: Post Surgery 
*He led the team to victory in the first two one dayers and the second test at Delhi. See what happened as soon as Sachin got out in the first innings. It was Kumble who "bowled" the team to victory, but it was Sachin who batted the team to victory
:: Score in Crunch Situation
What is a Cruch Situation, mate...... For Example, if India had lost the game against Pakistan in World Cup 2003, that would have been the crunch game. If India had lost in the super six, that would be the crunch. If India lost in the Semi Finals, that would have become the crunch game. Just because SACHIN WON ALL THE games, they did not become the crunch game and when he lost, that becomes a crunch game.
:: India Winning Games.
*India won a test in England in 2002. Who was the top scorer
*India won a test in Multan in 2002. Sachin scored 194 
*India won a test in Dhaka in 2004. Who was the top scorer
He is the God of the cricket
Again the problem is you do not count the games he has won, but you just count the games India has lost
Doctor Bruno 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tendulkar has been performing consistently, even if not as good as he has done before, but he's there, and he's coming back. There is no reason why the page should not attribute to his reat feats. This is like telling Einstein didn't find any new theory in the last years of his life. Go see the Einstein article, it will tell you all about how great he was, even though he didnt achieve much post.E=mc^2. Arjunm 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sachin talks with his bat

message: :The sentence I most objected to was "He is reckoned as the man with the Golden arm who breaks partnerships". Even if some people have said that, I don't believe it's a universally held view, although the article talks as if it is.
:However, NPOV is more subtle than you think. It's not primarily about specific sentences that are not accurate. Even if every sentence in an article is true and verifiable and properly sourced, an article can still have NPOV problems, by the selection of some facts and the omission of others, by failing to represent all legitimate points of view.
:Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. "Man with a golden arm" is a description. But it is a description which violates NPOV. Consider a situation in which a complete stranger to the game views this page. The impression he will get upon reading this particular statement will be that Tendulkar is a great bowler. The fact that he is a part-time bowler will completely evade him. To prevent that statements like that are avoided. NPOV is basically adhered to because of such instances.
Hope that clears it up
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Arm

message: A question to every one. Sachin, Clarke and few other batsman have been called as the persons with Golden Arm by leading cricketing writers. 
As per the policy of Wikipedia, why can't we just reporduce it after the customary VERIFIABILITY.
Why are we trying for  ORIGINAL RESEARCH as to whether he has taken this much wickets etc.....
Is ORIGINAL RESEARCH or NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH the policy of Wikipedia. Doctor Bruno 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as much as we explain it, the term golden arm is a term that upsets the POV balance. And as I have said above  when this term appears before a stranger to the game, regardless of all your arguments, it is going to appear as though he is a great bowler; which undoubtedly is misleading & thus disrupts NPOV. And I think that if one term is causing such dispute, I think it will be better if it is not included.
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Mumbai test, the score in the first innings is important as it was the first time Sachin was booed off the ground & that too by his home crowd. This will most definitely not show that he his a poor batsman as the rest of the article clearly points out that he is one of the best batsmen in cricket. The introduction of the article points this out that he is "...acknowledged as one of the best batsmen of the modern era." But when a batsman is not a great bowler we do not write that he is bad. So if you add the golden arm part it will show as though he is a great bowler. And I have removed the edits of the 2001 series as they are not relevant to the article.
Hope that clears it up
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, as long as you mention that he was booed off by a section of the crowd in the first innings for a poor innings, you should also mention that he was cheered to the crease in the second innings and also top-scored for the side. Cricket Crazy 10:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is also my opinion Doctor Bruno 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have mentioned in my previous post, this article has plenty of statements that show that tendulkar is a great batsman, but no description of him as a bowler. Adding the term "golden arm" will insinuate that he is an exceptional bowler. Unless you can elaborate about his bowling this statement will be out of place. And terms you have mentioned like "allrounder" & "fine leg" are official cricketing terms which have specified definitions & can be looked up whereas golden arm is an unofficial description based on the opinion of commentators & cricket analysts. Anyway I feel that this argument can continue forever & you seem very determined to add this controversial term to the article. So you may do as you please. I'm very tired of this argument as it is keeping me from making contributions to Wikipedia & I do not want to take any further part in it .
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Original Research

message: There is no doubt that Various reputed cricket writers have called Sachin as the man with the Golden Arm. This is an accepted fact and can be verified and is also from reputed sources.
Now I see an objection to adding the term in this page. The objection says that "a person who does not know may mis understand". I find that this argument is very shallow. For example, when you mention that Imran Khan is an allrounder, a person who is new to cricket may think used to run round the ground. Similarly, a person who is new to cricket may think that Fine leg means Aiswarya Rai.
Rejecting a well known and well established fact with a hypothetical theory that a newbie may misunderstand seems very awkward to me. (If you go like this, then when you say caught at mid wicket, some one new to cricket may think that the batsman was caught between the stumps and hence mid wicket violates NPOV etc etc .)
An encyclopedia should report terms and facts as it is used and should not avoid giving credit to a person in a hypothetical imaginary fear that some one who does not know may misunderstand.
Sorry for the sarcastic post Doctor Bruno 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned in my previous post, this article has plenty of statements that show that tendulkar is a great batsman, but no description of him as a bowler. Adding the term "golden arm" will insinuate that he is an exceptional bowler. Unless you can elaborate about his bowling this statement will be out of place. And terms you have mentioned like "allrounder" & "fine leg" are official cricketing terms which have specified definitions & can be looked up whereas golden arm is an unofficial description based on the opinion of commentators & cricket analysts. Anyway I feel that this argument can continue forever & you seem very determined to add this controversial term to the article. So you may do as you please. I'm very tired of this argument as it is keeping me from making contributions to Wikipedia & I do not want to take any further part in it .
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More about the Golden Arm

message: Tell about the other issues and we can sort one by one Doctor Bruno 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have patience to read WP:NPOV and understand the policies of Wikipedia as you state above, is it fair for you to expect us to engage in discussion with you on each of the points? --Gurubrahma 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it may be easier and better if someone copyedits it once to lessen the POV, rather than point it one by one. Tintin (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It's said that Sachin named his daughter Sara after the Sahara Cup victory over Pakistan in Toronto, one of his firsts after becoming the captain of the Indian cricket team. - Need a reference for this line. I have heard other explanations - like it was from SAchin and RAni (Anjali Tendulkar's nickname) and so on. Tintin (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miss Tendulkar 

message: Recent edits to criticism & recent performance by Doctor Bruno are off NPOV & unnecessary. Adding statements like "...and there by dismissing the myth that Sachin plays in the initial matches and not in the deciding matches in a series." are not only uncited but also tilt the NPOV balance. Also the edit about being the second innings high scorer in the recent India vs England test is unnecessary.
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: In the discussion about the 2001 Australia Series, it is given that Sachin did not do anything in the secodn test while Dravid, Laxman and Harbhajan did. 
What is wrong in mentioning that Sachin was TE ONLY Player to score a century in the third test.
Can some one tell why that has been edited.
When you say that Mr.X did not do in the second test and Mr.Y did, what is wrong in telling that Mr.X did in the third test and Mr.Y did not do there. 
Can any one give a justifiable reason for not including the word "only player"... Doctor Bruno 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2001 Australia Series

message: Tendulkar is not just one of the "best batsmen of the modern era". He is generally acknowldged as one of the greatest of all time. I have made this correction in the opening paragraph. Cricket Crazy 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed by me to include a citation. -- —Moondyne 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One of the greatest of all time

message: The use of acknowledged in "acknowledged by Wisden in 2002 as being the second greatest Test batsman ever" makes a subjective statement sound proven and indisputably true.--Harold holt 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to agree. The original article, which I have read but can't find to link, is not the eulogy to Sachin that the 2 linked articles that refer to it would have you believe. The original source should be linked not the poor second hand sources we currently have. The original article used very specific non standard criteria and under those Sachin came out second (a LONG way) behind Bradman. Other criteria would produce very different results. In any case, it was ONE Wisden article. Many others have different claims. --LiamE 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: spin on batting ranking

message: As per the revers and a nice suggestion of let's stick to facts not hyperbole, even if someone else said it)  by User:Stephen_Turner, I have removed few quotes. I am sure that it is in accordance with the previous edits of removing hyperboles. Doctor BrunoTalk 13:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article needs more of a concrete chronological account, rather than random anecdotes and generalistations. I'm trying to fixup User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid and Tendulkar will go the same way I hope. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyperbole

message: Can some one update the Man of the Match Awards
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=1934;class=odiplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1989-12-18;start=1989-12-18;enddefault=2006-08-19;end=2006-08-19;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;viewtype=aro_awards;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
:I can put my hands on this, as and when I get some time.
:A thought: As there will be atleast 52 rows(plus the header row) in that table, would it not be a good idea to number it?
:In other words, shall we have a dedicated column for numbering?  So here goes my proposal for that table.
:
# 	Date             	Against    	Venue
1 	1990-91          	Srilanka   	Pune
2 	1991-92          	West Indies	Sharjah
50	March 16 2004    	Pakistan   	Rawalpindi
51	July 21 2004     	Bangladesh 	Sinhalese Sports Club Ground
52	September 14 2006	West Indies	Kuala Lumpur>http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/dlfcup/engine/match/256607.html
: - KNM  Talk -  Contribs 23:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Man of the Match Awards in ODI

message: : If you are giving a new meaning to a term used by reputed cricket writers, I am afraid that it is  ORIGINAL RESEARCH. (Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.)
: And single-handedly does not mean that you have to bat without partners or bowl without fielders. You should note that terms used in cricket have their own meanings. Removing certain terms (especially terms which are crediting Sachin here and terms which are criticising other players at their pages) is not good for Wikipedia.
: inexorably - what about this term 
: It the term is used by Cricket writers, we have to use that. As clearly stated this is not a place for OUR NEW IDEAS and dissecting what one term means. Doctor BrunoTalk 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please settle this here, before changing that in teh Main Article. Can you DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH OVER HERE Doctor BrunoTalk 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * The only person who has got it in less innings in international cricket is Jacques Kallis (25)
Note that it is just the second least not even the least (and that too against only ONE country). So technically we have 100 players with equal or better records
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE
On the other hand, records like highest score in One Innings (Lara), Highest Career Average (Bradman), Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs etc are important records
 Doctor Bruno Talk 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already mentioned the Highest Average as the important record. It is generally accepted that the key batting records are highest score in One Innings, Highest Career Average, Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs and Key Bowling records are Highest Career Wickets, Best Innings performance, Best Match performance, Best Average and Best Strike Rate. I was just highlighting this fact. Of course, you are not Dravid's marketing agent. (And I am not Sachin's mouthpiece). I just want to treat all cricketers as equal.  Doctor Bruno Talk 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Original research

message: Recently there has been a discussion regarding important records in cricket and useless records. One example of a useless record is
# He has the record for least number of innings required to score 1000 runs against West Indies by an Indian (26) 
:* The only person who has got it in less innings in international cricket is Jacques Kallis (25)
Note that it is just the second least not even the least (and that too against only ONE country). So technically we have 100 players with equal or better records
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
# Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE
# Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE
On the other hand, records like highest score in One Innings (Lara), Highest Career Average (Bradman), Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs etc are important records
 Doctor Bruno Talk 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already mentioned the Highest Average as the important record. It is generally accepted that the key batting records are highest score in One Innings, Highest Career Average, Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs and Key Bowling records are Highest Career Wickets, Best Innings performance, Best Match performance, Best Average and Best Strike Rate. I was just highlighting this fact. Of course, you are not Dravid's marketing agent. (And I am not Sachin's mouthpiece). I just want to treat all cricketers as equal.  Doctor Bruno Talk 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of Unimportant Record 

message: Bowling section starts with "While not a regular bowler", and the next sentence says "he regularly bowls". I believe this is inconsistent. He is not a regular bowler (ie, not among mainstream bowlers), so it would be better if the phrase "he regularly bowls" is removed. Any thoughts/suggestions? - KNM  Talk -  Contribs 03:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Doctor Bruno  17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowling 

message: A table in this article refers to a 1990-91 ODI match vs. Zimbabwe at "Hamilton".  Is this perhaps Hamilton, New Zealand, Hamilton, Bermuda, Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, or one of several places in Australia named Hamilton?  If anyone has a reference to the actual venue of the match, it would be appreciated if you could update the article.  --Russ (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Hamilton, New Zealand.  Sarvagnya 11:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hamilton" match 

message: :First of all, some of the "facts" you present are simply false. Although Tendulkar's average against South Africa in South Africa in ODIs is a (relatively)  36.10http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;host=3;opposition=3;template=results;type=allround his average against Australia in Australia in ODIs is in fact 34.33. http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;host=2;opposition=2;template=results;type=allround Secondly, the reason why the ICC Rankings for 2006 are not up is because they represent pretty much the lowest ICC Rankings he has achieved in his career, as the 2005-2006 period was one of the greatest form slumps Tendulkar has suffered. It would not be in any way indicative of his overall performance throughout his career. Furthermore, suggesting that SRT is not even in the top 20 ODI players of all time nor the top 100 Test players of all time not only goes against the bulk of statistical evidence (Top run scorer and century getter in both forms, 19th highest career average in Tests,http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html 12th highest career average in ODIshttp://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282911.html) but also contradicts the wisdom of the vast majority of cricketers and cricket writers out there. Lastly, to respond to your comments regarding the minnows, recall that there have always been minnows (in Viv's time, it was Sri Lanka) and that they have always represented a fairly small portion of the total games played (365 of Tendulkar's 425 ODIs have taken place against Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan or Sri Lankahttp://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround) and that Zimbabwe was in fact quite a respectable team from the late 1990s up until the 2003 world cup. Notice also that even if all the minnows are ignored, Tendulkar's average in ODIs is still 42.43, and he still has 13960 runs and 33 centuries in ODIs which means even if you ignore all the runs he's made against the minnows he's still the top run scorer and century getter.http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround Similar results ensue if you carry out a similar analysis in Tests. Elostirion (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC Rankings 

message: I feel all persons who got Padma Bhushan, padma Vibhushan, Padma Shri, Bharat Ratna should be named as respective honours that they've got i.e. we should write Italic textPadma VibhushanItalic text Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar instead of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar and also there should be a page named medals of merit by Indian government,
Thank You
:Agreed. But the title should be italicized to imply clearly that its a title and not part of the name.  Wiki5d (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Padma Vibhushan

message: I am trying to translate this  help will be appreciated. I apologize if this is inappropriate place to ask for help. I will be happy to post this request at the appropriate forum if someone points me to it Truetyper (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation into hindi

message: I think Mr S Tendulkar is a moderately effective bowler. Dont you think so? He can bowl a ball by crcling his arm. Sometimes batesman misjudge strokes. I havent seen batsmen stroking to well. Even if they were it produces no effective outcome. The frequency of stroking also decreases. This indicates Mr Tendulkar is good wih his hands to prevent others from stroking,
For his leg breaks does he bowl right or left handed? Because of BLIC2005 it says Left handed but I wanna know.
:He bowls all of his styles right-handed. It would be very freaky for someone to able to bowl with either hand. It would be incredibly handy to have such an ability. GizzaChat © 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowling

message: Controversy leads to criticism and criticism is often caused by conotroversy hence they are related. Any other thoughts? GizzaChat © 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think criticism and controversy should be merged 

message: The two photos are exact same (one of them is zoomed and cropped). One is described to be from 2005 at Chepauk Stadium, and the other from 2006 at Chidambaram Stadium. deeptrivia (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed Kalyan 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: There is this very recent incident-him being photographed cutting a cake which looked like an indian tricolour. controversial. I've added a line about that in the controversies section-can someone elaborate. Wildpixs 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this incident of any significance? Does this need mention? The case was a result of the anguish from recent world cup exit and need for publicity from social activists. Unless there is some development which implicate Tendulkar and FIR is filed, i suggest that this sentence be removed. Kalyan 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cake Incident 

message: I would like to know whether South Africa being the number 2 team is a reliable fact or a Point of View.  Doctor Bruno  02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what you are talking about. If, however, there is a claim of SA being the number 2 team in ODI cricket that is in fact fully supportable and not POV.  --LiamE 03:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is POV

message: I feel that it would be better if we split up the international career part into Tests and ODI's like the records section. That would make it a lot better to present to the readers. Plz give your opinions abt this. Illidan reules 10:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of the article 

message: KNM - The lead claim of Sachin as the 2nd greatest Test batsman ever atributed to Wisden, as opposed to a Wisden article is massively overstating the case. It was one article using very specific criteria, giving lots of weight to high aggregates denied most cricketers of yesteryear, and throwing up some very idiosyncratic results. To claim that the source says Wisden and and not a Wisden article is silly. The source quoted is not a primary reference and should not be treated as such. To state it as "Wisden" as opposed to an article would suggest that there are no articles in Wisden that disagree.... and there are a great many articles in Wisden that do disagree. It isnt really for me to prove it was one article, it is for you to prove that that is the Wisden consensus which you are trying to validate from one second hand source. In a quick look I've found a Wisden article putting Dravid ahead of him so its questionable whether Wisden thinks he is the best batsman in the current Indian team let alone the second best ever. Other articles put solid cases for Hobbs, Hammond, Lara, Richards, Headley, Ponting and several others. Just for the record, although Sachin got second place in that list he was nowhere near Bradman. Bradman came in with a score of 1349, Sachin in second with 921.5, with several close behind him led by Richards with 913.9. If the same calculation were run again today, Sachin would most likey not make the top 5 as his average has dropped  while the others in the top 5 would all get the same scores again. In addition Dravid and Ponting would no doubt be pushing for a place with their impressive form over recent years. --LiamE 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see No Original Research. The entire case made by you above, just sounds like Original Research, and it doesn't help the debate here. The sentence in the article is supported with a citation. Thanks. - KNM  Talk 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the last sentence is OR, the rest clearly is not. Do you think I pulled those numbers or names out of the air? As it stands I feel the article is overstating a second hand source. --LiamE 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I'll give you OR on the last 2 sentences but the rest should be addressed. --LiamE 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a good analysis, LiamE. Although I might agree on you, all your claims still remain personal opinions of two amateurs unless you can find some solid references backing them. I would be glad to see more Wisden articles analyzing Sachin's career and compared with other contemporaries. Gnanapiti 06:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Wisden 5 cricketers of the century had 100 pundits on the voting panel. 4 of the 5 winners were batsmen and Tendulkar was not one of them. So I think we can say that Wisden's panel does not think he is definitively second. Since Bradman and Sobers were on 100 and 90 and Sobers might be classed as an allrounder but Hobbs and Richards were at least ahead of Tendulkar on that count. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for taking the time to read it. My concern is simply that the article overstates Wisden's position. It is unfortunate that the original article seems to be not available online. I have read it, and I have also read several other second hand sources referring to it. To my mind  is a far less partisan reading of the Wisden source. The cite given is clearly not neutral. Bradman heads a list by a sunday mile and the headline reads "Sachin the second best ever" Do you really need me to link other wisden/cricinfo artcles where cases for the others are put? I think that relying on partisan second hand source to back up an extravagant claim does a Sachin a mis-service and detracts from his article. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is wiki policy. The second best ever batsman a big claim. As it stands it suggests that there is no dissent to that position at Wisden when their other articles prove otherwise. All I suggest is it is noted it was a particular article that is being referred to but KNM disputes that for what I can only assume are reasons of personnal bias on the matter. --LiamE 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one article. To prove that it is only one Wisden article and not Wisden as a whole, I hope you can cite the other articles from Wisden which say otherwise. GizzaDiscuss © 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd best ever test batsman? 

message: has sachin tendulkar ever played full 50 overs starting from the first over till the last ball of the innings. if yes how many times has it been achieved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.122.18 (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in a Test Match, he does not open, so he cannot play from the first over (unless 2 wickets fall in the very first over), but then the Indian innings would not last long enough for him to play 50 overs (that means the other 8 people have to play around 50 overs from the other end. Jokes apart, may be he means Carrying the Bat in ODI - I guess he has done that may be more than once at that, but I am not sure.167.131.0.194 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tendulkar has played full 50 overs in a game??? 

message: User BInguyen selectively removes references to good performance by Sachin. I request him to stop this POC pushing. All my edits are cited. Yet this user removes all valid points. Doctor Bruno  08:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Pushing by BInguyen

message: This shld be made into FA. Just use the standard set on Bhajjis page. Darrowen (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First I'm going to go through and get rid of all the unnecessary stuff and weasel words etc. Then I'll add stuff. Darrowen (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: Will it be wise to move all the records and achievements to Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar or Records and Awards held by Sachin Tendulkar and to simply summarize the most notable ones here? Darrowen (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: There must be a better photo somewhere! If anyone is friendly with him or a fan club of sorts please request a photo be donated. Benjiboi 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: It would be helpful if a reference overhaul took place to format them all in the same style. Benjiboi 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: how are they?
Sai2020 10:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new pics 

message: Sachin's Career Aggregate and No. of Innings. As of January 17th 2008, Sachin's aggreagate was 11603 in 145 matches(and not 11606 in 144 matches). The average will of course change accordingly. Can someone fix that, this article is protected and I cannot change it.167.131.0.194 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like no one saw this until now - now it is 11616 runs in 145 matches and 235 innings at 55.31.71.236.190.42 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.DesiStrider (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Numbers 

message: Hi - i noticed that the information in the Test Centuries section of the article is a subset & pale comparison to the List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar page. I think the Test centuries table is redundant. I think it should be removed
My 2 cents is that a different table - summarizing Sachin's test centuries against opponents would be a better fit for the main page because it would give an overview.
--Kalyan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.222.82 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed for removal of the centuries table, given that those details now has its own page, which in itself is a featured list. Anyone has any oppositions? - KNM  Talk 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no opposition, I have gone ahead and removed the list of centuries, and added List of International cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar link  in See Also section. -  KNM  Talk 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test centuries 

message: Its rather presumptuous to list the last ODI as being 4 March 2008, the match isnt over yet and if Australia win it will be incorrect.  Editing to show he is still active in this form of the game, for a few hours at least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.13.50 (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume, you are referring to the Last ODI in the infobox. Well, there it actually means, the latest ODI and not as the last / final ODI of his career. IMO, his "last ODI" is still far away from now. - KNM  Talk 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last ODI? 

message: I want to see the exact official article that states that Tendulkar was ranked the best ODI bat ever ahead of the incomparable King Viv. Till very recently, the 'great' Tendulkar averaged a tremendous 26 and 28 etc in Australia and South Africa and had a grand total of zero centuries on their soil and his only three centuries outside the dream-batting tracks of Asia came against formidable attacks like Zimbabwe and Kenya.
King Viv and many others played on much more difficult tracks, against much better bowlers, with no protective gear, and hardly any batsman-friendly rules. King Viv averaged around 50 all over Australia and other places and with a SR of 90+ when 30 and 70 were the hallmark of greatness. How then can Tendulkar with 40+ and 86 in an era where 90 seems to be the norm be ranked one? I shall tag the statement in the article if I do not see a valid reference (NOT another Wikipedia article) to it within the next two days.
I had said that I wanted a valid citation for Tendulkar being ranked 1 and King Viv at 2 in ODIs. King Viv was ranked 1 and still is by MOST non-Indian fans and many Indians as well, with Bevan at 2. Tendulkar has fattened his ODI stats with huge scores against weak attacks and on the great batting tracks of Asia. His averages are in the range of 26-28 against McGrath and Warne in Aus, while against Lillee, Thommo, Pascoe, Hogg, etc Viv averaged 48 with sr above 90.
This is not a site to write falsities and lies according to personal bias and 'patriotic' feelings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Anup RamakrishnanAnup Ramakrishnan (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNSUPPORTED CLAIM OF GREATEST ODI PLAYER 

message: i think his 20:20 statistics need to be added too.also what about creating a template : infobox for all cricketers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustajoy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 : 20 statistics

message: I think the article style is less encyclopaedic and more like that of a fan site. Take a look at the subheadings:
*Rise through the ranks
*injuries and decline
*return to form.
Also there are many unreferenced credits . The very second paragraph is on "Playing style" whereas the general tendecy is to have a sportsman's life history after the introduction. Can someone please look into this? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Style 

message: The part where it states that Sachin "Would often get bored of practice" is utter rubbish. A slap to whoever put that. There have been accounts by several coaches and team-mates recalling instances when Sachin would be up at midnight batting alone in the nets. I am not being biased towards him, but it is overwhelmingly clear that as a child, he couldn't get enough out of cricket.
Coach Acharekar (I believe) would only place a coin on the stumps when Sachin was near exhausted, to try and spur him on to keep fighting. If anyone can, please edit out the current mistake and add my above revision. My source is the biography of Sachin by Vaibhav Purandare.
A Prodigy (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to go ahead and modify/delete the line. If you are modifying it, it would help if you add the source - book, author, page number, ISBN etc. I hope you know the format, if not just leave a message here and one of us can show you how. Tintin 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason for that is, the article is semi-protected, meaning unregistered and new users cannot edit the article. - KNM  Talk 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "Would often get bored of practice" sentence from the article. Cheers - KNM  Talk 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I was able to edit the main article some time ago, this problem has been resolved :). A Prodigy (t•c•m) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to point out an obvious error. Also, why has the ability to edit thie main article been taken away? 

message: Look at this article. His cameo role in the movie (his debut movie) can be mentioned somewhere in the article. DockHi 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vighnaharta Shri Siddhivinayak movie 

message: Even though he is from born up in a middle class SARASWATH BRAHMIN family. why is it not put up in the article?
Can you please add that information in the article.somebody has deleted it from the article.
(SHIVANANADA (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Sachin's background: 

message: I think we can have a better looking front face photo of Sachin. kindly upload and update if any one has Kkoolpatz (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is exactly wrong with the current image? The quality is good, and it shows enough of Sachin's face to pass for me. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: His face is in the shadow of his hat - surely someone can whistle up a better photo that this. One of him playing cricket perhaps ? Far Canal (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Front looking Photo 

message: I found an excellent, may be the best ever site on Sachin Tendulkar. www.sachinandcritics.com and added it in the external link. but it got deleted thrice. What is this... the official site is not working... if it is working, it is not so great when compared with sachinandcritics.com
it is to silence the critics. Check it... why it has been removed? --218.248.68.63 (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you add it to the External links section? If not, that may have been why. But if you did, I personally cannot think of a reason as by which someone would delete it by -_-. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding site to answer sachin's critics 

message: Apart from being a horrific abuse of the template syntax (!), this template is redundant in the infobox on this page as Sambot now updates statistics weekly.  Sambot thinks the template is a reference or suchlike and so ignores it, leaving a mess.  I removed the template before, but someone (I don't know who) re-added it.  It would be great if people could avoid changing this again.
Thanks,
Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Sachin-stats}} 

message: Would someone like to make the article with the list? Couple of helps -  62.64.213.206 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expressed surprose  on this at Talk:List of cricket batting averages.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually looking at things, there are navigation boxes at the bottom of bowler pages for >=400 wickets and >=700 wickets. Shouldn't there be one for >= 10K test runs?--Peter cohen (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of leading run-scorers in test cricket

message: On surpassing the highest number of test runs, Tendulkar said "It is definitely the biggest 
achievement as it has taken me 19 years to get the record” which is different from what is written on 
this page (“It is definitely the biggest achievement in 19 years of my career”)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvpradeep689 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small correction in 'Career Achievements' 

message: The article is massive and there are multiple references to some of his records (across the article).
So maybe I will start cleaning up the introduction and then move out some of his records to the other related articles like Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar.
ajoy (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not long at all. YellowMonkey  (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: c60K including all the gunk that doesn't count towards recommended limits means there's no pressure to split yet.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split up the article 

message: In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar#Early_years_and_personal_life page the line "Tendulkar was born in Mumbai (now Mumbai)." has to be "Tendulkar was born in Bombay (now Mumbai)."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekthangaswamy (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Information change needed. 

message: Sachin is also nick named "Tendlya".
: at the moment, please provide a source for that nickname to reference it. ~ mazca t|c 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source 
*http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1292583.cms
*http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/636291.cms
Sachin's nick name is Tendlya.BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendlya  

message: Sachin Just completed 1 more century http://imsports.rediff.com/score/in_asa_9255.html. That now makes 41 test century. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Test Century

message: The link in the external links section at the bottom of the article saying 'Sachin Tendulkar Official Site' links to a site which is not by any means official. It is just a site maintained by a fan (Refer: http://tendulkar.co.in/index.php/about/). To suggest that the site is by any way promoted or sanctioned by Sachin Tendulkar by terming it official is wrong. It needs to be corrected right away. Thanks.
(Maulikt (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor has removed that link altogether. So no lasting harm done? Blooded Edge Contact 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong External Link title at the end of the article. 

message: This section could be added to, particularly when stating that Sachin's efforts have been a major part of Indian victories. % of team runs scored by Sachin during victories, or during any games, and number of centuries scored in a winning cause over a losing one - stats like that could be useful here. SGGH ping! 14:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tendulkar's achievements has its own article: Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. Dapi89 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Career achievements

message: there's not anything mentioned about sachin's new innovations, like the fours he hit over Gilly's head off Brett Lee in the 2008 CB Series Finals. Or the the way he curved his bat in IPL 2009 to direct a fullish ball through the vacatn fourth-slip to gully area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.56 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: adaptibilty