Sachin Tendulkar & the flawed research query

FirstPost's question of the day is a classic illustration of how NOT to frame a research query and drawn implications from responses. FP's poll question states, 'Sachin Tendulkar picked the right time to retire - I Agree / I Disagree'.

I answered 'I Disagree' thinking that meant I was saying he should have retired earlier. But mine and other such answers have been taken by the FP commentator to imply we are saying otherwise. The commentary below our choice suggests our responses meant we want Sachin to have stayed longer, and not retire now.

A 'I Disagree' answer to FP's poll query can be construed in two ways. It can mean the respondents are saying Sachin should have retired earlier. It can also be construed as respondents asking Sachin to stay on.

Now to my answer. What did I mean by my 'I Disagree'? I meant Sachin should have gotten off earlier rather than hang around to play for records so he could cement his 'legend' status.

Are there others who agree with yours truly?

Sure. Note Munnabhai's response to the same statement, 'Hell! I have been short changed. I voted "I disagree", considering it meant that the bugger should have done it years ago.'

Munna, I can't agree more.


Vishnu Raghavan said…
There are many of us who felt that he should have retired far earlier. At all events one must leave on a high- rather than suffer the indignity of getting pasted by people of a more so called pedestrian status.
Nasser Hussain, the English captain once retired gracefully stating the time was ripe for a fresh pair of legs to take over. Was hugely impressed and more so when he retired with 96 tests under his belt. There is a lesson that people should ask why are you leaving, not when. Guess its a lesson all should imbibe
Vishnu Raghavan said…
short of a hundred went Hussain.

Popular Posts