A further clarification on our thought process which is also a response to emails we've received and comments made about us and our methods.
There are some who have dismissed the Report as a subjective analysis. Unfortunately, they have not even bothered to understand the fundamentals of this exercise - which is analyses on five different parameters - which is as objective as it gets in circumstances like this. Reading even one profile page would have made that clear.
It also appears that some people are unable to fathom how match-winning ability can be taken into account while evaluating an individual performance in a team sport. If they'd actually taken the trouble to read our intro more carefully (or at all), they'd have noticed the 5th parameter that takes match situations into account to determine how a player performs under pressure. We believe the 4th (match-winning average) and 5th parameter together tell you a lot about a player's match-winning ability. It has been demonstrated several times in the Report.
Viswanath, for example, would not even make the top ten on our list if match-winning ability could not be measured thus (his away average was a very mediocre 36, but in matches won abroad he averaged 53, and overall in matches won - 50). In the same breath, as usual without bothering to read the Report, people have commented about Gavaskar - about how he is being penalised for having played when his side did not have bowlers to win matches. If they'd taken the trouble to read, they would have seen that his average in winning Tests is a mere 44, and yet he is no. 2 on this list for precisely that reason. We have even stated it in the profile.
Also, there is incredulity about match-winning percentages being compared across eras and teams. Even here, we have made it clear that the teams' winning propensity has been taken into account and brought down to one common base. Which again is why Gavaskar and Kapil Dev are in the top five, and why players like Mankad, Umrigar, Hazare and Gupte make it in the top twenty. In Tendulkar's case, his career has been split in two - 1989-2000 and 2001-2008 which brings his peers and him down to a common base.
No method is fool-proof, and we look forward to sharpening our methods (to whatever extent possible) as we go along through feedback.
Responding to some of this feedback here -
One constant argument is that India had a poor team in the 1990s and Tendulkar is being penalised for the mediocrity around him. Well, here are some more facts for them.
India won 18 Tests in the 1990s (17 in India, 1 in Colombo). Here are the MoM distributions - Azharuddin 5, Kumble 3, Srinath 3, Tendulkar 2, Raju, Kambli, Prabhakar, Mongia and Hick 1 each. Tendulkar's 2 MoMs were against England in 1993 and Australia in 1998. He came in to bat at 149-2 in the first match, and at 115-2 in the second.
The fact is, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, Azharuddin was a greater match-winning batsman than Tendulkar, and since they played for the same team at the same time (as per the time-span of matches we have taken above, that is, the 1990s), this conclusion is fairly irrefutable. Since 2000, Tendulkar has not won a single MoM in a match that India has won (Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly all have).
However, Tendulkar's performance in these same matches is remarkably consistent, and as his average of 64 in these won Tests suggests, he was a support act like no other. The story is quite different in ODIs and we suspect a lot of fans who are reacting from their gut are confusing ODIs with Tests here.
What does this whole business of "match-winning" mean anyway? There have been comments that suggest that it is the bowlers who win matches, and since India did not have bowlers in the 1990s India did not win in that period. So, how does that explain the 18 Test victories mentioned above? Interestingly, 10 of these MoMs were won by pure batsmen and 2 by all-round efforts. Of course, the bowlers had to get 20 opposition wickets but are these people railing against us seriously suggesting that matches are not set up by batsmen? That the pressure on opposing batsmen is not enhanced because of the score they are up against? Kumble himself has gone on record claiming that his performances abroad would have been much better had he been bowling when defending higher scores.
Some have wondered whether the great innings by Dravid or Sehwag would have the same value if the bowlers hadn't got the opposition out. This is where they need to look at our last parameter of batting under pressure. Dravid's 233 came after India was 85-4 (and his 72* in the second innings in a fourth innings chase). His 180 (with Laxman's 281) came whilst following-on. Even his 270 came after India was 0-1 in a series decider. His 148 came after India was 15-1 and the conditions were very difficult for batting. His twin fifties against West Indies in 2006 had him at the crease longer than the entire West Indies team. Look at Sehwag's greatest innings. His 201* after being thrashed in the previous Test, with Murali and Mendis on a roll. His 84 against England in 2008 opening up a match in 100 minutes flat. His fast-paced 309 emphatically demoralising the opposition so much that the bowlers' job was made considerably easier. His 155 (out of 233 when he was dismissed) changing the tenor of the match completely. Add to these innings Laxman's 281. Even if India had not won these matches (and they didn't win one of them - Sehwag's 155) would they not still retain their classic status? How many of Tendulkar's Test innings match up to these, whatever the result? His 155 had the benefit of a great start - he came in to bat at 115-2 with Sidhu already having mauled Warne. His 136 could not take India through for just 12 runs (remember Lara's 151* in very similar situation in the same period?). His fourth innings 103* had already had the benefit of Sehwag's match-redefining innings. His 119* in 1990 helped save a match, no doubt - the only time in his whole career he has done that. Nobody is questioning Tendulkar's genius, or his incomparable talent, but he did NOT play match-defining innings as his legend suggests. Maybe instead of "match-winning" innings we could call them "impact" innings.
Another fact not being examined is the nature of Tests where Tendulkar played many of his sparkling innings. Except for the 136, very few of the other Tests were close (as draws or defeats). In fact, it would have taken performances as great as Tendulkar's or even greater efforts to win or save some of those matches (notable exception - Sydney 2004 but that's another story altogether).
Another point that is being missed is our 5th parameter - playing under pressure. The fact is that Tendulkar chose to bat at no. 4 all his life, while Sehwag had no choice but to open. Why should Sehwag not get an extra point for that, especially after the success he made of it? Dravid at no. 3 often faced high pressure situations - and he often stabilised things considerably before Tendulkar walked out to bat - should that not get him an extra point?
Somebody complained that we have not taken Tendulkar's series-deciding centuries against Australia amongst his best 5 knocks as we're biased against him. The 2 innings he mentions are 126 in Chennai 2001 and 109 in Nagpur 2008. Well, in the first, Tendulkar came out to bat at 211-2, and there were two sixties and two eighties around him. In the second, he came out at 99-2 and there were two sixties, one fifty and one eighty around him. In both matches, he was eventually eclipsed in terms of value - by Laxman's 65 and 66 in the first, and Sehwag's 66 and 92 in the second. Tendulkar failed in both second innings. There are many such examples in Tendulkar's case. The point is not to have a competition going between team-members but to evaluate the true value of an innings in a MATCH context. The six innings we chose of Tendulkar's we believe are superior from that angle.
Then there is an argument made is that Tendulkar has been a great player for 19 years while Dravid has been great for just 6 years and Sehwag for just 4 years. This Report is not about overall records alone but impact of individual performance on team performance. It is not about talent and longevity but about the impact of a player on Indian Test results as a whole.
Finally, to address the comment that keeps coming again and again - would Sehwag have been able to take the weight of expectations that Tendulkar bore in the 1990s? Are there people who seriously think Sehwag would have played any different? If anything, the evidence suggests that it probably would have freed him up even more, as there would be very little at stake since India would be winning much less.
