|
|
|
| |
 |
Views
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
How many times have we heard the accusation against Sachin Tendulkar
that he is not a finisher, that he falters at the doorstep of victory,
that he does not deliver in crunch situations or really important
matches? Before we analyze these charges there are a couple of points
to ponder.
Talented individuals and great players may garner all the attention but
then isn’t cricket in the ultimate reckoning a team game? Should not
the team come before any individual however great he might be? It is
true that outstanding cricketers can shape notable triumphs but the
greatest victories are quite often achieved when there are a number of
invaluable contributions from more than one member of the team. And
these could be from the lesser lights or less glamorous players.
Given this background Tendulkar could well be asking what the others
are doing if he is expected to win a match every time, to come off
every time. It is because he is so prodigiously talented, has earned a
name for himself as one of the greatest batsmen of all time that
expectations are so high – sometimes unreasonably high. Which is also
why everyone is after his blood when he fails.
When Tendulkar recently made his 41st ODI century against West Indies
and India went on to win the match I did some research and found that
ten of those hundreds went in vain. Of the remaining 31 India won 30
matches and there was one no result. In almost all the ten games that
India lost when Tendulkar made a hundred there were hardly any sizeable
contributions from the others. In some cases the players who followed
him in the batting order failed to build on the excellent start he gave
the side.
At Adelaide in January 1948 Vijay Hazare scored a century in each
innings, yet Australia won by an innings and 16 runs. In the second
innings he got 145 out of a total of 277. There was only one other
score just over the half century mark and five batsmen were out for
ducks while a sixth remained unbeaten without scoring. With just a
little contribution from half the team Hazare could well have seen
India draw the match. Thirty years later Sunil Gavaskar could well have
asked the question ``what are the others in the side doing?’’ and as
vice captain could have pulled up half his team for not contributing to
the team’s cause. He got a hundred in each innings and Pakistan won by
eight wickets. A few years ago of course came the supreme example of
one man carrying an entire team – in vain. Brian Lara scored a double
century and a century and yet Sri Lanka won by a clear cut margin of
ten wickets. One wonders what would have crossed his mind at the end.
This is not written in Tendulkar’s defence. Yes, sometimes he has not
been there at the finish, at times he has not contributed in a crunch
situation or an important match. But one can’t be too harsh on a player
who has also contributed immensely to the success of the Indian team on
numerous occasions – as indeed some of the facts and figures I have
mentioned clearly point out. When he fails it will be more appropriate
to remember that cricket is a team game in which everyone is expected
to contribute to a team’s success. The onus cannot and should not
always be only on the superstars.
|
|
|
|
|
More Views by Partab Ramchand
