The events of Day 3 of the Mohali Test once again put into the spotlight Tendulkar's controversial approach to batting and I thought instead of just sitting around cursing it,let's do some analysis. What has changed in the past 2 years ?? Is it just a perception that we are having or is there some truth in that ??
So I did. Since World Cup 2003 (that is the period since when he has started boring his fans most of the time) he has a strike rate of 52.37 in Test match cricket. But wait - the ICC homepage shows that his career strike rate is 54.35 which means it has gone down only by about 2 runs per 100 balls in this period. (Earlier it was 54.70). While these figures may bear witness to his own assertion that he is still scoring at the same rate but in a different fashion, it also throws up a new question - with such a modest strike rate, was he ever a very attacking batsman at all ??
Gilchrist of course leads the list with Kapil Dev and Sehwag occupying 3rd and 4th places. Notable names above Tendulkar in the list are Jayasuriya, Lara, Graeme Smith among others (These are batsmen who have scored a reasonable number of runs). Even among Indians, Tendulkar is nowhere near the top of that list. Besides Kapil and Sehwag, I think Sandeep Patil, Srikkanth and Mohammad Azharuddin are higher than him. And when we are talking Mohammad Azharuddin, we are talking a pretty long career and lots of runs.
So is Tendulkar the God we all make him out to be ?? Should he not be more in the league of the Allan Borders and the Geoff Boycotts rather than the Viv Richards and the Brian Laras ??
By his own admission he has changed his style of play while still maintaining his strike rate. So eveidently, earlier he was a great shot-maker, a boundary hitter I mean; but who played out a lot of dot balls in between. Now he is a great singles machine. But great entertainer ?? Nah. A complete great batsman ?? Nah.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1. Not everyone makes test debut at the edge of 15 and carries on his career for 16 yrs toppling most of the records on the way.
To be specific:
2. Not everyone scores 114 against a fiery attack at Perth at the age of 18, when rest of team collapses like nine-pins. And there are many more such examples, like..
3. Not everyone put up a "one man show" in face of a sandstorm as well as world's best team.
4. Not everyone is hailed as a great batsman by the likes of Don Bradman and Viv Richards.
5. Not everyone is considered to be in worst form, even when they manage to perform as good as some good players like Rahul Dravid or Damien Martyn (in terms of strike rate and avg).
6. Not everyone is considered as a "failure" if they fail to "entertain". Notable hypocrisy of the critics is that they applaud some of the other players who used to put up a much boring batting display, not just in tests but even in one dayers. (eg. 1 run in 23 balls against Kenya)
6. Not everyone is talked about so much even when in the worst of their batting form :-p.
Yes ... living in the past is great ain't it ?? Also, why make oblique references to "critics" and "certain players" - just call them with their names man - although the arguement is over and cannot be further negotiated. From my side at least (unless somethings change in the future that is)
Technically speaking, everything you have commented on, is a matter of past. "how much past to consider" is upto us. Anyways, lets see what future has for us.
Post a Comment