Last evening, Jamie Alter came up with a bold piece of shit: For God's sake, Tendulkar, just go. In a nation where cricket is considered to be a religion, his piece is tantamount to blasphemy. As a matter of fact, I respect Alter's freedom of expression. I have utmost respect for his courage to come up with such a bold article. But, I felt irked by something that was missing in an otherwise perfect write-up. Rationality, it was.
Mr. Alter, I agree with you that the 100th international century is a meaningless pursuit. It might be affecting Tendulkar's batting. But, is it justified to say that it is affecting the performance of the Indian team? Tendulkar can be blamed for not having been at his best in Australia. But, is it right to blame him for the poor performances of ten others? And yet, you say you're rational.
Everyone of us wants Tendulkar to leave the game respectfully. But, it isn't up to us to decide his fate. We don't even have the right or authority to question his retirement plans. And, for the record, he still isn't greater than the game. Had he been, he would never have agreed to the "bogus" rotation policy [which asks him to warm the bench once every three matches]. And, if the inclusion of Tendulkar for the CB series was solely aimed at giving him further rope for scoring the three-figure knock, the rotation policy would never have applied to him. Now, I'm being irrational, ain't I?
Good bowling (and not necessarily good bowlers) gets rewarded with wickets. Tendulkar has been dismissed 401 times in ODIs before this CB series, not always by great bowlers. Yet, Mr. Alter criticizes him for having fallen to the likes of Mitchell Stark, Angelo Mathews and Nuwan Kulasekara. Mr. Alter, do you mean to say that no mediocre bowler should ever claim Tendulkar's wicket? Does this seem rational? And, as a matter of fact, when any player walks back to the dressing room, he is isolated and his head is held down (unless he gets dismissed off the final delivery of a session).
The hype over 100 international centuries was never created by the man himself; it is the over-sentimental Indian media who is the culprit. I agree with the opinion that 99 international centuries is as good as 100. This 100 wouldn't make him any greater than what he already is. But, it is his love for the game that still keeps him around. Rationality, who cares?
A couple of days ago, there was another such article, written by Suresh Menon, who mentioned that it was Tendulkar who educated a generation into thinking that statistics are more important than anything else. So, what I could infer from his statement is that batsmen never celebrated their individual contributions to the game in the pre-Tendulkar era. < Face-palm >
I ain't a cricket pundit but what I can remember is that someone (definitely, a commentator) said that Tendulkar plays one-day cricket because it helps him re-discover his form. We are nobody to question his retirement plans. Not until BCCI comes up with a worthy replacement. Another legend, Saurav Ganguly, was allegedly forced to retire from international cricket in 2008. We still don't have someone who can be even half as good as he was. I don't see any such replacement for Tendulkar in the near future. And, I don't want to see Tendulkar's career ending in that fashion. Folks, let him decide when to quit.
And we're nobody to decide whether making himself available for the CB series was all about getting that 100th century. I'd still hope he gets that much-awaited century in this series. He isn't God. But, he is trying his best to succeed.
Mr. Alter, I agree with you that the 100th international century is a meaningless pursuit. It might be affecting Tendulkar's batting. But, is it justified to say that it is affecting the performance of the Indian team? Tendulkar can be blamed for not having been at his best in Australia. But, is it right to blame him for the poor performances of ten others? And yet, you say you're rational.
Everyone of us wants Tendulkar to leave the game respectfully. But, it isn't up to us to decide his fate. We don't even have the right or authority to question his retirement plans. And, for the record, he still isn't greater than the game. Had he been, he would never have agreed to the "bogus" rotation policy [which asks him to warm the bench once every three matches]. And, if the inclusion of Tendulkar for the CB series was solely aimed at giving him further rope for scoring the three-figure knock, the rotation policy would never have applied to him. Now, I'm being irrational, ain't I?
Good bowling (and not necessarily good bowlers) gets rewarded with wickets. Tendulkar has been dismissed 401 times in ODIs before this CB series, not always by great bowlers. Yet, Mr. Alter criticizes him for having fallen to the likes of Mitchell Stark, Angelo Mathews and Nuwan Kulasekara. Mr. Alter, do you mean to say that no mediocre bowler should ever claim Tendulkar's wicket? Does this seem rational? And, as a matter of fact, when any player walks back to the dressing room, he is isolated and his head is held down (unless he gets dismissed off the final delivery of a session).
The hype over 100 international centuries was never created by the man himself; it is the over-sentimental Indian media who is the culprit. I agree with the opinion that 99 international centuries is as good as 100. This 100 wouldn't make him any greater than what he already is. But, it is his love for the game that still keeps him around. Rationality, who cares?
A couple of days ago, there was another such article, written by Suresh Menon, who mentioned that it was Tendulkar who educated a generation into thinking that statistics are more important than anything else. So, what I could infer from his statement is that batsmen never celebrated their individual contributions to the game in the pre-Tendulkar era. < Face-palm >
I ain't a cricket pundit but what I can remember is that someone (definitely, a commentator) said that Tendulkar plays one-day cricket because it helps him re-discover his form. We are nobody to question his retirement plans. Not until BCCI comes up with a worthy replacement. Another legend, Saurav Ganguly, was allegedly forced to retire from international cricket in 2008. We still don't have someone who can be even half as good as he was. I don't see any such replacement for Tendulkar in the near future. And, I don't want to see Tendulkar's career ending in that fashion. Folks, let him decide when to quit.
And we're nobody to decide whether making himself available for the CB series was all about getting that 100th century. I'd still hope he gets that much-awaited century in this series. He isn't God. But, he is trying his best to succeed.
"Beneath the helmet, under that unruly curly hair, inside the cranium, there is something we don't know, something beyond scientific measure. Something that allows him to soar, to roam a territory of sport that, forget us, even those who are gifted enough to play alongside him cannot even fathom. When he goes out to bat, people switch on their television sets and switch off their lives."
-BBC Sports
No comments:
Post a Comment