Of course, in the context of things, there is nothing frighteningly alarming about any of this. In fact, if it were any other player, it probably would have gone unnoticed, but this is Tendulkar we’re talking about. It is a measure of his greatness that he is held to a higher standard. In the old days when Bradman got out early in a match, the papers would have a field day. The media craves excitement, and, to the cricketing world, Tendulkar failing in a test match is the most sensational story, perhaps, since Einstein’s theory of relativity. Having said that, it is true that there has been a change in Tendulkar’s approach. I saw it for the first time last winter in the home series against England. Of course, it has nothing to do with his technique or any such nonsense - Sunny Gavaskar ought to know better than that. The simple fact is that Tendulkar is no longer enjoying his cricket. He is not playing with that carefree abandon that has been the scourge of bowlers the world over. Part of this is, of course, the burden of expectation of an entire nation, and a team that is struggling. Additionally, the comparison to Bradman has become an albatross around his neck. We saw it in the Caribbean when the entire series became a hot debate as to how long it would take him to equal, and then surpass Bradman’s 29 tons.
Secondly, more than any other batsman, opposing captains and bowlers are forever looking for ways to dismiss Tendulkar. Last winter Nasser Hussain instructed Ashley Giles to bowl a negative line down the leg side to him. Giles succeeded in frustrating him, but Hussain received a barrage of criticisms over it. And former England Captain, Ted Dexter, even went so far as to request that ICC introduce measures to prevent it happening again, admitting the leg-side bowling had been "a matter of pushing the laws to their limit to gain advantage". Following such criticisms, Hussain changed his approach a few months later, and, in the first test he instructed Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones to bowl from around the wicket with short-pitched deliveries directed at Tendulkar's rib-cage with a packed leg-side field. Though legal, these methods have only served to make the point that the English bowlers have all but admitted that they are unable to dismiss Tendulkar by conventional means.
"They did it against Sir Donald Bradman and there is no easy answer to such theory," said Mike Gatting, the former England captain, referring to the Bodyline series of the 1930s. "Bowling at that straight angle, with a bowler coming round the wicket, would leave a batsman with little option. The only good news for Tendulkar is that a bowler can't get it right all the time."
However, Gatting felt it wasn't an issue of intimidation or fear with Tendulkar. "I don't think it is fear. He is too good a batsman for that. But sometimes you can't do anything for such a thing. It is like a good outswinger which gets the best batsmen out," he said. Sir Geoffrey Boycott feels that: "The only way a batsman can tackle this is to take a single and go to the other end," he said.
Meanwhile, West Indian fast man Mikey Holding had this to say: "These days such line of attacks are being called great tactics," Holding said. "When we did it, (referring to the 70s and 80s) it was intimidation and the Laws were quickly changed." "May be, if West Indies start producing fast bowlers of similar quality, they would again term it intimidation."
But having to live up to a higher standard, or the issue of leg side theory does not tell the whole story. Tendulkar is saddled with the additional burden of an impossible expectation – the expectation that, single-handedly, he can bat India to victory. The argument goes something like this: if Tendulkar is such a great batsman then he should be able to win more games for India. For cricket fans feasting on sentimentality that is understandable, but to hear such mindless drivel from people who ought to know better is disconcerting to say the least. Their contention is that only a handful of his 29 tons have resulted in wins. I submit that if a batsman makes a hundred and his team loses the game then it is not really his fault. Cricket is a team sport and it is simply ridiculous to contend that any one player can win a game. Case in point, a batsman can score a triple century but his team still has to dismiss the opposition twice to ensure a victory.
To bolster their argument very often Steve Waugh is presented as an example, or Sir Vivian Richards of that famous West Indies team of the 80s, or Dennis Lillie of that Aussie team of the early 70s. These are all great and successful cricketers in their own right – but, if you mistakenly believe that they won all those matches singlehandedly then I, respectfully, suggest that you retire to the record books and gain some much needed enlightenment. Tendulkar’s only mistake would be if he tries to fulfill this expectation. He can’t - and the reason is quite simple – the expectation is an impossible one – no player can singlehandedly win games.