The Debue of Sachin Tendulkar not a match-winner myth

When you look back on the illustrious career of Sachin Tendulkar, you have to use your magnifying glass to find cracks in his armor. If that does not work, you have to resort to using a microscope. You should not be surprised if the result does not produce anything. The proverb "finding needles in a haystack" is anything but. The fact that a player of his stature has just courted controversy in 24 years of international cricket is so terrible as his list of centuries; add to it the fact that he owns practically every batting record worth owning makes as big as the Eiffel Tower, and needles as small as a mustard seed haystack.
Perhaps, the only issues that remain under debate is that many of his hundreds came in losing causes and did not play when it mattered most. Strange to say he did not play when it mattered, when the statistics say it's literally the best. But more on that later.
Let's look at these points in two aspects: statistical and analytical.

An analytical explanation is provided at first. If you still disagree, a statistical explanation follows that, too. There is a common belief that the statistics do not give the correct picture. However, I have the firm conviction that they do, if you look in the right way. In any case, both aspects have been taken into account.
A) Tendulkar and hundreds

No. 1 and Test Hundreds Tendulkar
The basis of the argument that India always lose when Tendulkar scored a hundred is wrong. When a player scores a century, more often than not, he would be the best player innings. You simply can not blame the player who played out of his skin, for a loss. The only logical explanation of this argument is that Tendulkar played slowly in letters of intent, and thus lost the team for India, to be contradicted later in this piece, anyway.
But first let's start with tests.
Imagine that there was a bad king. He did nothing for himself. One day, the Minister had enough. He tried to make the Kingdom a better place to live. He did all the hard work, bore the burden of the kingdom, but in the end could not make a difference. Blame people and not the minister said nothing about evil king.
This story makes sense to you?
Sachin Tendulkar scores 100 India one lost a test match. That is, for some reason, forgotten God is synonymous with "Sachin Tendulkar scores a century, and therefore India loses the match test '.
What is the fault of Tendulkar in tests if your century is a lost cause? It's like Usain Bolt running the fastest among a team of four in a relay, and if still not enough, must take the blame for the defeat. If players do not support it, it is not his fault that the team lost, unless you have the expectation that he should have taken out his leggies and a pair of triplets.
A test match can be won only when you have 20 windows. A batter can hardly be blamed if the bowling team does not. The fact that 20 games of the tests have ended in a draw when this man had scored a century is also a proof of the fact that he has done what is realistically possible with the bat: he snatched a draw from the jaws of defeat. Let's look at some of them.

His first Test hundred, a fight at Old Trafford, in which he came to bat at 109 for 4, with 4 hours left to play, is a testimony to the fact. He lost two wickets early in the road, but clung to prevent an obvious loss.
The fight 111 against South Africa in Johannesburg, 1992, when the second highest score by an Indian was 25 and 43, first and second inputs, respectively, in the party.
His 126 with Rahul Dravid of 144 in the second test in Chandigarh, 1999, when India had folded to 83 in the first innings.
Having conceded a lead of 139 to the West Indies at Eden Gardens, India reeling at 11-2 when Tendulkar came to bat. Soon it became 49-3 and 87-4. The Master Blaster combines VVS Laxman to string together a partnership 214 runs and take the match beyond the realm of defeat.
You come to the losses, how can a player who has played out of his skin to be blamed for the loss? As mentioned above, the weight loss has to be borne by the bowlers. One way to explain this is as follows:
The average run granted by Australian players, while Ricky Ponting hit for them was 28.96. The corresponding figure for bowlers of India with Tendulkar on the side was 35.35. In other words, in an innings when they lost 10 wickets, bowling Australian players granted about 70 fewer runs. In two innings of a test, the figure is close to 140 (safe to assume in a losing cause 10 wickets have fallen more often). Assuming Tendulkar had those bowlers, would have changed the outcome of the defeats than victories.
A simple table can show to an extent it was Tendulkar's contribution, and what was the contribution of other team members. Note that this is equivalent to a fool's errand, as it has to be among the top scorers scoring a majority if 100 seconds Higher scores are bound to be surprised, though.

This table shows the exact opposite: in matches when India lost Tendulkar had scored a century, was the team's contribution was missing, and the Master was fighting a lonely battle. If anything, this shows the greatness of the champion player instead of the fact that he was found wanting. It was the second top scorer once and, at times, was well ahead of the second-leading scorer.
Is it the fault of Tendulkar shining when others hesitated?
Let us, for a moment, assume that this criterion the percentage of centuries in winning causes the overall figure is correct. This would mean that Tendulkar, who has a winning percentage of 39.22, there is a better batsman Ian Bell, Graeme Smith, Thilan Samaraweera, Ashwell Prince and even Simon Katich!
Also mean that the aforementioned players are better than Sir Gary Sobers, Brian Lara, Ian Botham and Michael Clarke.
And this would Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar, Mohammed Hanif Martin Crowe and the worst players of all time!
I still think that this method of assessing a player is correct?
The fact that these players scored centuries when others could not get his bat on the ball of shows that were on the weaker side and too good. For some unknown reason, is taken to be the other way around!
Now you still feel it was the fault of India lost Tendulkar when he scored a century?