The Perfect Tendulkar

Hey, I'm on the look out for the perfect Tendulkar. The one, you know, that wins matches alone. The one that can, if necessary, move mountains on a cricket field. But where is he?

God knows, but I know a distant cousin of him that actually exists. The blood in his veins is human, as are his frailties. He is a cricket genius, but not the perfect cricketer. (Was there one ever? The only person who came at least close was a glorious exception, perhaps even an aberration.)

Maybe, this is a contention that, in light of the Tendulkar bashing that is so widespread nowadays, will elicit nothing but cries of "there's another one" or an incredulous, snide remark like "Oh really? Funny how he keeps his genius hidden!".

For I am told by the people who carry such views, a fraction of the population that is rising disconcertingly rapidly, that the man is overrated. That he is hyped, that his record is inflated way too much. The only thing that matters is that he can't win matches for India.

He can't? I point out that he has the most number of Man of the Match awards in LOI history. Whereupon the powers that be assure me that most, if not all, of them have come in matches of no consequence. It must be an amazing achievement to win so many matches, and make sure that all of them were inconsequential.

Wait, I know what's going wrong here. All these people are searching for the wrong Tendulkar, the one that is described in the first paragraph. Let me take up the Tendulkar I know and the one I intend to defend.

The accusations against him are manifold, but the first one is his supposed inability to play match-winning innings. Gilchrist and Lara are often quoted as people who can. But Gilchrist plays for a side that's one of the strongest in the history of the game, and has such a strong supporting cast that his failure most of the time would not have much of an impact on the team's fortunes. Furthermore, he's helped by a potent bowling attack that wins matches which appear lost. Tendulkar has, as been well documented, played for far weaker sides, and the pressure on him is often so much that he just cannot afford to take the risks that Gilchrist can without a second thought.

The second person chosen for comparison is usually Lara. Lara has, at least in recent years, played for a side weak enough to be compared with India. But assuming that Lara and Tendulkar are equally talented and have similar resources at their disposal, can one say unequivocally that Lara has used them better than Tendulkar? Funnily enough, Lara can't because he admitted recently of a desire to play responsibly like Tendulkar. Lara has throughout his career gone for a guts or glory approach which explains the high quality match-winning innings he has produced as well as the miserable runs of poor form that he's had. By comparison, Tendulkar's performances have fluctuated very less, although he's played less stellar innings than the West Indian.

You would, without doubt, choose Tendulkar to bat for your life, but maybe prefer Lara at his destructive best to Tendulkar at his. This is probably why Tendulkar averages more in both forms of the game. Should we be satisfied with that or point out Lara's differences in style and ask him to follow suit?

Maybe this point is best illustrated by Sehwag. Often labelled Tendulkar's clone, he is at times more destructive than Tendulkar, but who would you want at the crease when India is chasing a high target, be it in Tests or one-dayers? Maybe Sehwag is going to give you the odd innings of 100 in 70 balls, but what about the days when he doesn't? Is one match-winning innings better than many, which, with a bit more support from the rest of the team, could have been match-winning? It is not that Tendulkar can't play more aggressively, but that he chooses not to. And where he should draw the line depends perhaps on him, for he alone can estimate the risks involved.

I am not trying to prove that all is fine with Tendulkar's batting at the moment. There are concerns; his approach to spinners being one of them, but pointing out specifics like these is what we should attempt rather than make sweeping generalizations like inability to play an innings that is of value to the team. With the record that he has, it is very probable that many of these are due before he calls it a day.

So even if we don't have a perfect Tendulkar, let's enjoy his genius while we can. After all, Gods don't play on the cricket field, and although very fine players do, they won't last for ever.

Editor's note: Rediff believes that like its own editorial staffers, readers too have points of view on the many issues relating to cricket as it is played.

Therefore, Rediff provides in its editorial section space for readers to write in, with their views. The views expressed by the readers are carried as written, in order to preserve the original voice.

However, it needs mentioning that guest columns are opinion pieces, and reflect only the feelings of the individual concerned -- the fact that they are published on Rediff's cricket site does not amount to an endorsement by the editorial staff of the opinions expressed in these columns.

Mail V K Rajkamal