The Tendulkar Debate Revisited
Sham Samaroo
March 29, 2003
What debate? We have heard it all before. This time around its the World Cup final. Sachin Tendulkar failed to deliver when it mattered most. He is not reliable. He has never won a big game for India. Of course, this time around, it would be, somewhat, difficult to say it and keep a straight face. But, then again, these individuals have their own agendas, and do get highly annoyed should you try to engage them in a discussion. It is not my intention here to defend Tendulkar, nor do I wish to confuse closed minds with the facts. People have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. Hopefully, in this World Cup, Tendulkar has managed to dispel a few of those myths. One in particular is the criticism that he cannot play on fast, bouncy tracks away from home. Of course, they conveniently discount the little matter of Tendulkar scoring his first test hundred at the age of 17 at Old Trafford to save the game for India; or that a few weeks earlier, on his maiden tour to New Zealand, he barely missed out becoming the youngest player to score a test hundred after he was dismissed for 88 against Sir Richard Hadlee and company. Or that a year later he scored back to back test tons on his maiden tour to Australia – an unbeaten 148 at Sydney and 114 at Perth. And yes, there is also that little matter of him scoring 111 out of a total of 227 in Johannesburg on his debut to South Africa. So that by the ripe old age of 19 he had already registered 5 test centuries, 4 of them abroad, making him the youngest player to reach 1000 test runs. Oh dear, I did promise not to confuse you with the facts.
Coming to South Africa, Tendulkar’s last 3 one-day knocks were 1, 0, and 1 – two runs from 3 matches. India started the Cup in the worst possible way. An unimpressive win against Holland was followed by a 9-wicket thrashing by the Aussies. At home the fans went berserk, torching effigies of players, and attacking their homes and families. Who was it that appeared on TV to plead with them to be patient? Was it the Board President? Was it the Captain or Manager? No. It was Tendulkar who read a statement asking them to be patient, and promising that India would do well in their next game. Tendulkar, mind you, had top scored in both of those games. There was no player in the World Cup who carried a greater burden of responsibility, to his team or his country, than this man. A few days later, India traveled to Harare to take on Zimbabwe – a team that had beaten them in the 1999 World Cup. Tendulkar again top scored with 82 to set up that win. The following game against Namibia he batted almost to the end scoring a watchful 152. It was an uncharacteristic knock, but it showed his determination to fulfill his promise to the Indian fans. The next game against England he only managed 50 but it was a delectable knock – poetry in motion. It was the kind of innings you savour – much like a favourite song that you continue to listen to long after its over. That innings was the appetizer for the showdown with arch rivals Pakistan. It would not do justice for me to attempt to describe it. Suffice to say that, if you haven’t seen it, you have missed out on the greatest innings of World Cup 2003. This was the opportunity to witness how Tendulkar handles pressure. The moment he elected to take strike against Wasim Akram, there was an air of anticipation throughout the ground, and that first over from Shoaib Akhtar is one for the ages. In the Super Six match against Sri Lanka he met Muralitharan, whom he had not seen in almost 3 years, and registered a brilliant 97. In the semifinal against Kenya he played a watchful knock of 82 to ensure that there would be no repeat of the 1996 semifinal.
To criticize Tendulkar because India failed to win the finals would be unfair. In the first place, lets make no mistake about it, India were in the finals because of Tendulkar’s inspirational batting performances that motivated the entire team. Secondly, Australia had batted them out of the game. Some time ago, when asked why he preferred to open the innings, Tendulkar said that it allowed him to dictate the terms to the bowlers. In this game the deck was stacked long before he got to the crease. It is said that no target is impossible. In that case, a target of 360 is as close to impossible as it could get. India needed to maintain a score above 7 an over throughout their innings, and that, against the most lethal attack, and finest fielders in the tournament. Until the Finals, no team managed a score of 230 against the Aussies. New Zealand, who had dismissed them for a meager 208, were themselves routed for 112. In their semifinal against the Aussies, Sri Lanka played 8 batsmen, and in the end were struggling at 123 for 7 chasing 213 for victory. While Pakistan, chasing 310 against the Aussies, were all out for 228. In addition to that, the highest score ever in a 50 over World Cup final, whether batting first or second, was 253 by Australia against England in 1987. The fact that Tendulkar intended to challenge that target of 360 runs is a measure of the man’s courage and self assurance. There are those who argue that, maybe, he should have stuck around for a few overs and get a decent score. My question is simple: Why? To what purpose - just for the sake of getting a good score in the finals? Tendulkar has never batted “just” for the sake of scoring runs. As long as he was at the crease, he wanted India to be in with a chance. To accomplish great deeds one must be prepared to take great risks. That meant going after the Aussies from the first over. Unfortunately, it was not to be. Of course, none of this would satisfy his critics, but then again, I never thought it would. Still, I think Greg Chappell deserves the last word here. After watching him, this is what Chappell had to say: “He (Tendulkar) cannot last forever, so I make every effort to see him bat whenever I can for he is a rare gem, the like of which does not come along very often”.