Ed Smith: Sachin Tendulkar, forever icon |
Comment Posted |
Share to |
47
|
|
Comment posted successfully.
|
For many who have not been to India or experienced life as we live it, the Godliness of Sachin would seem an exaggeration of emotions, or patriotism brimming over. You have to live as an Indian, in India, to know how we feel. India is a land of survival, a chaotic society where nobody, except the super-rich, is sure about where their next good meal will come from. A billion people face their daily struggles searching for a ray of hope, a beacon. For the past 25 years, one man has given us billion Indians some light at the end of a tunnel. We look to him, we suffer with him, we cry for him, we puff our chests for him, we tell our own 'Sachin stories' at myriad conversations, we name our sons after him, we draw doodles of him, we pray for and to him. Is he not God?
The placard proclaiming: Cricket is our Religion and Sachin is our God, is famous enough; it seemed to encapsulate something peculiarly Indian, placing SRT above criticism, God-like indeed. And God, as Ed has explained, defies definition. In the face of God we are like children - unable to find words to express the overwhelming awe of the completely unknowable phenomenon and, we are told by the learned divines, that that is as it should be. I am not Indian and therefore cannot leap the Ganges on wings of faith. To me Tendulkar is the finest Indian batsman of all time and not a God. I can see his flaws; see that he's been in a protracted (almost painful) decline; know that he has made a small army of interested parties very rich & for the many millions of Indian cricket fans, carries the hopes & fears of a nation with him every time he goes to bat, many of whom say that SRT's retirement will end their love of cricket. Cricket is their religion? Not quite, Sachin worship is not cricket.
Ed, that is quite an observation. He has become a machine, ironically to preserve his most human qualities and his self. I am confident as day follows night follows day that Sachin is acutely aware of his impact on the masses. If his mask had slipped, there would be entire generations following his every move and imitating it, possibly loosing their own self in his pursuit. The number of 'taches went up among the British Indians following Shikhar Dhawan's exploits this year. It would have been an epic change had he let the mask slip at any point in his career except the last two years. His self control and silence is evident everywhere in Indian cricket. His silence on everything is reflected from every team member. Qualities we see in him are there to be seen for those who look. A growing and changing India needed a face and a bearing... The era of Sachin just happened!!!
Well written as always. If all we need to understand a sportsperson is to watch him in action, there was indeed a long time in Sachin's case. I agree with Ed but see no need to understand Sachin beyond what is evident. There is no meaning to be derived, no motive to be discerned and no need to work backwards to deconstruct or analyse his character, personality or person. What is the meaning behind the beauty of a sunrise? This need to somehow fit his game and personality into a nice compact narrative is an injustice to Sachin and other artists. I rather like the fact that this lack of 'other glimpses' makes it even more rewarding to just watch him in action. That's how we should appreciate all artists.
Every one thought steyn will trouble sachin in India's tour of South Africa in 2010. But he played one of his best cricket in that tour. His 146 at Capetown is one of the best knocks I have ever seen.
10) Lara may well have had a few spectacular innings, but then so did many others inc. Sehwag. Also Lara's flamboyance tends to obscure faults which cricket "fans" should actually realise: Lara had s distinct weakness against real pace ( 145+ ks - not medium pace). Lara does not have a single 100 vs. any genuine pace bowler till 2003. Then on he has 4 against Lee and Flintoff on the most batting friendly conditions imaginable. Tendulkar has multiple classic 100s against virtually every genuine pace bowler of the past 25 years. 11) On NON -continental "flat tracks". Tendulkar does better than Lara in Aus, NZ, Eng, Saf is the same. This despite Tendulkar's last couple of horror tours to Aus and Eng.
8) People conveniently pick one particular "analysis" ( out of countless). Must have taken a while to find one particularly suited to his premise. In any "analysis" - the weightings are mostly arbitrary. So, though one may agree in principal on most parameters - the weighting is subjective and will change depending on the individual. There are countless other analyses showing Tendulkar on top. 9) Regarding any individual innings. Any individual innings always has luck as a factor. For eg Tendulkar's 136 may well be regarded as a superior innings to Lara's 153. The sole difference being one catch taken , the other dropped. But even if we arguably say that Lara's few innings were "better" - the same may be said about numerous batsmen - Richards, VVS, Sehwag, Botham, etc. etc. Make what you want out of it. Thereafter - any conditions, any where, any time , any bowling , any format- It is difficult to look beyond Tendulkar.
6) Matt Hayden is at No. 10 in these peak ratings - ahead of Lara at 23 and Tendulkar at 29. Hayden had a poor start to his career but the matches/runs were few enough to create little drag later. Ponting at No.4, Sangakkara at No.6, Hayden at No.10, Yousuf at No.11, Hussey at No.17 -all achieved their best ratings in the mid 2000s . As mentioned earlier - amidst the greatest run fest in history. Did they face tougher bowlers and pitches than Tendulkar. 7) So- again the author reveals his lack of elementary understanding of how the stats are created. If you take Tendulkar's peak years such as say 1994-2000, or 1996-2002 you will get quite another "peak" rating as compared to when cumulatively totted up from his debut in 1989.
4) It is in this period of unprecedented runs that numerous batsmen "suddenly" caught up with Tendulakr. So a superficial look at overall stats suddenly show all in the same boat. 5) The ICC player ratings are not "Peak" ratings as in for a certain period. They are the peak ratings attained cumulatively from a players debut. So, if a batsman had a poor debut the ballast will create a drag on future points. Tendulkar had a poor start to his career even though he played a few great innings . The consistency was still not there for one so young.
1) The entire "Number of runs" and longevity issue is merely another feather in the Tendulkar cap. As far back as 2002 Wisden had him ranked as the 2nd best batsman of all time behind the Don. 2) Through the 1990s , for batsmen who played THROUGHOUT the 1990s ( MINUS minnows Ban/Zim) Tendulkar averaged 59, to Steve's 52 and Lara's 51. i.e for an entire decade Tendulkar was 15% better than the "next best". Needless to say - only the Don can boast of such sustained dominance over his peers.
To help make this website better, to improve and personalize your experience and for advertising purposes, are you happy to accept cookies and other technologies.
Comments have now been closed for this article