Why is the straight drive considered his trademark shot? Why not the backfoot punch drive?? The latter is much more difficult to execute and hence a rarity in all forms of cricket. It requires a lot more skill, split-second and precise judgement of the length. And yet Sachin added breathtaking beauty to precision. There used to be a collection video of his backfoot punches. Going through that collection made me wonder who did it better than him? Why is this shot not his trademark??

Poetry in motion: Sachin Tendulkar’s straight drive. The epitome of balance, technical perfection, and pure grace. 

God, how badly I miss watching this live. Cricket just hasn't felt the same.

During the 1990s, Sachin Tendulkar wasn't just India's best batsman. For many fans, he was India's biggest hope of winning a match.

There were games where his dismissal seemed to change the entire mood, both on the field and among the fans.

But here's something I've been thinking about.

Did India's dependence on Sachin sometimes become a weakness for the team?

When one player carries so much responsibility, does it make the rest of the batting lineup less confident? Or was the dependence simply a reflection of how far ahead Sachin was compared to his teammates at that time?

And as players like Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Sehwag established themselves, did that change allow Sachin to play with more freedom?

I'm especially interested in hearing from fans who watched India throughout the 1990s.

Was the famous "Sachin out, TV off" mentality just a fan reaction, or did it reflect a genuine problem within Indian cricket?

Smith struggling to maintain avg of 56

Avg is 55.69 now in 126 tests
Avg of 38.59 in SA (&29.75 in 2 tests in Bangla - Aus lost one of those tests with Smith failing!)

3rd+4th innings avg of 37.58 with only 5 centuries.

https://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/267192.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

Sachin averaged 57 till he turned 38 and 177 tests

Only 4 year/6 year prime period of Smith is comparable with Sachin. Else nope. Smith is well behind.

and yes, Smith got plenty of easy wickets to bat on also in 2010s, vs Ind in 14, in NZ in 16, in WI 15, vs Pak in Aus 16 to name some very easy series for batting.

2010s was almost as easy as 2000s batting wise.

Sachin averaged 58 in the 90s - the toughest decade. Only 4 batsmen averaged over 50 in that decade (min 2500 runs). next highest was only around 53!

https://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2500;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1999;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Yeah, Sachin did have it easy in the 2000s, but tennis elbow prevented him from capitalizing fully for about 3 years.

Smith averages below even Mushfiqur Rahim, Chandimal in 2020s, FFS.

https://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2500;qualval1=runs;spanmax2=12+Oct+2026;spanmin2=01+Jan+2020;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Is Smith the best test batsman of his era? absolutely.

But since 90s? 3rd best after Sachin and Lara.

and yes, test batting has gone down since 2018-2020 or so - especially significantly when there is some help for bowlers. So don't bring in 2020s stats purely to tell it was tougher than 90s batting wise. It wasn't. 90s was actually a tad tougher IMO.

Sachin Tendulkar made his ODI debut in 1989, but it wasn't until 1994 that he first opened the batting.

And what happened when he finally got that opportunity? He smashed 82 off just 49 balls against New Zealand.

That one change completely transformed his ODI career.

It makes me wonder how different his numbers might have been if India had recognized his potential as an opener much earlier.

He spent his early ODI years batting lower down the order, often with fewer overs available to build an innings.

Did India miss out on several years of prime Sachin by keeping him in the middle order?

Or did those early years actually help him develop into the complete batsman he eventually became?

I'm especially interested in hearing from fans who watched Indian cricket before 1994. Was there a genuine reason Sachin wasn't opening earlier, or was it simply a missed opportunity?

Sachin Tendulkar is remembered as one of the greatest batsmen ever, but his captaincy is often treated as a failed chapter of his career.

He captained India during a difficult period, when the team struggled with consistency, especially overseas.

But here's something I've always wondered.

Was Sachin actually a poor captain, or was he leading an Indian team that wasn't strong enough to execute his plans?

We saw how successful India became under Ganguly and later Dhoni, but those teams also benefited from different players, conditions and circumstances.

Imagine Sachin captaining the Indian team of 2003–2011, with Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Yuvraj, Zaheer and eventually Dhoni around him.

Would his captaincy record have looked completely different?

Or was Ganguly simply a better leader, regardless of the players available?

Curious to hear from fans who actually watched Sachin's captaincy years. What do you think he lacked as a captain?

Everyone talks about how Sachin carried the expectations of a billion people, but I've always found one aspect of his career interesting.

Early in his career, Sachin often played with incredible freedom. He attacked world-class bowlers, took risks and could completely change a match within a few overs.

As he became India's most important batsman, the responsibility grew. There were times when his approach seemed more calculated, almost as if losing his wicket carried more weight than scoring quickly.

And that raises an interesting question.

Did the pressure of being India's biggest cricketing hope prevent us from seeing an even more destructive version of Sachin?

Or was learning to control that aggression exactly what made him one of the greatest batsmen ever?

I'd especially like to hear from fans who watched both the 1990s Sachin and the more experienced version of the 2000s.

Checkout this reel -

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeM46IOpKI_/?stkn=cW01OXYyZmJqY29x

He scored 4 centuries during this period(along with a 96). lowest of his 4 centuries was 138, while others were 163, 175, 200 At that point in ODI history, no player had scored 160 or more in

I think that if Sachin Tendulkar would have played this particular Ind vs wi 2026 odi series, he might too have scored atleast one century against WI 😭🙏🏻

This series was so one sided and batting friendly that Sachin at 54 could have easily bashed WI bowlers 💔🐐

What do y'all think? One century or even more?

Sachin is one of the finest all-round cricketers India has ever produced — exceptional with the bat, underrated with the ball, brilliant in the field, and exemplary in his discipline both on and off the field.
Decades of consistency at the highest level, yet he remained humble even after reaching theabsolute peak.
Rarely do you find a 💎 this complete.

Sachin’s longevity is one of the greatest parts of his career, but it also meant fans saw everything — his peak, injuries, comebacks, another peak, and eventually the decline that comes with age.

That made me wonder about something.

Imagine Sachin had retired around five years earlier, while he was still closer to his peak.

His career numbers would obviously be smaller, but would people actually remember him as an even more dominant batsman?

Or are those later years — the 2010 Test run, the ODI double hundred, the 2011 World Cup and the 100th international century — too important to remove from his legacy?

Would retiring earlier have strengthened Sachin’s aura, or diminished his legacy?

Why compare players from completely different eras with different rules and conditions? If both of them played in the same World Cup, why not compare their performances in that tournament? That would give you a much fairer comparison and make the answer clear. In 1996, Sachin was the same age Virat was in 2011. Everyone knows how dominant Sachin was in that 1996 tournament and the level he had reached by then.
Sachin played across three different eras 1996,2003,2011 as India’s top scorer. That longevity and consistency speak for themselves.

What Virat Kohli has been doing is nothing short of amazing, and I haven't seen much of sachin tendulkar. Those who have seen tendulkar play who do you think is the BIG MATCH PLAYER?? I think Virar is better but then again i might have a generational bias

What do you think??

Looking back now, Sachin’s career often gets discussed as if everyone simply accepted his greatness from beginning to end.

But fans who followed cricket during the 90s and 2000s will remember that he was constantly under scrutiny too.

Captaincy, strike rate, performances in certain situations, injuries, team results, retirement — there were periods when almost everything was debated.

So I’m curious:

What criticism of Sachin was genuinely common while he was still playing, but sounds strange or difficult to understand when you look back at his career today?