I was contemplating a follow up to the earlier ramble about percieved “flair” and “imagination” in Captaincy, when i came across this article about Tendulkar’s slow batting. It is my contention that analysis about a particular player/team is cricket is a function of how much is known about that particular player/team. Some teams are more minutely analyzed and written about than others, as are some players. These teams and players (they include most of the top test teams and most of the top players) therefore fall prey to stereotypes – because beyond a point, analysis refers to previous analysis and not current performance. Now, that previous analysis is invariably dipped in the euphoria of a great victory or in the despair of crushing defeat. The Cricinfo article is a classic example of an imagined stereotype about Tendulkar becoming the dominating reference point for discussing his innings against Bangladesh.
Bangladesh as an opposition were irrelevant – that was the expectation given that they were minnows, and that became evident during the series. They have only 2 players who can threaten good opposition – Mortaza and Ashraful, and Ashraful has serious problems with temperament. So, as a series to determine the quality of any Indian cricketer, this was quite irrelevant. Four Indians made hundreds. Wasim Jaffer’s was a typical understated innings – the innings of a seasoned first class cricketer. Nothing excites or bores him enough to disturb him. Dinesh Karthik was like a Cat on a hot tin roof, and like anyone on a hot tin roof, he exhausted himself very quickly. Rahul Dravid was the luckiest of the lot. He played the post tea and pre lunch sessions against a tired and demoralized attack and made the most of it (made 88 runs in the 37 over post tea session, if he had known, he could have joined Farokh Engineer in making a hundred in a session in a Test). Tendulkar played two consecutive sessions, and like every other player who did so, suffered in the process. The first session brought him 54(91) while the post lunch brought him 38(79). The post team session brought him 21(25). He was clearly tiring in the post lunch session and against fields set purely for containment on a slowish wicket, it was tedious going.
The Mortaza – Tendulkar contest was intriguing, in that Tendulkar was unwilling to hook the short ones. This was possibly due to the fact that the bouncers were not quick, indeed the ones that he left were loopy, there by indicating that it might have been hard to time a hook shot. It was by Tendulkar’s calculation an unnecessary risk. Increasingly, that has been the hallmark of Tendulkar’s play – calculation. His batting is extremely measured – mindful of his own limitations and constantly referring back to his own experience. His has been troubled by SLA bowlers before – bowling into the rough. The most intriguing contest in England will be between Tendulkar and Panesar. Panesar’s predecessor Giles was content to be bull-headed and attack leg stump from over the wicket – a SLA’s leg trap if you will, while Panesar, especially without the influence of Duncan Fletcher, might be unwilling to do that.
In essence, the Cricinfo article suggests that “this is not the old Tendulkar”. They are quite right. Today’s Tendulkar is not quite the rich mans Mohammad Ashraful that he was 10 years ago. If analysis involved what analysis should involve, then this reference to the Tendulkar of 1997 of 1998 might have been easily dismissed. When Tendulkar says that he plays for the team and that his role has changed, it seems to be ignored. The evidence suggests that he does indeed play for the team, and that he has changed his role, keeping in view his declining competence. What we are seeing in the case of Tendulkar is accumulated experience trying to compensate for the wear and tear of time. That in itself is rare.
Now, you might think that i am trying to paint Tendulkar’s efforts in a brighter light than they command, and if you have observed the decline in his batting as i have, then you would probably be right. But it is here that the crux of the matter lies. You might ask – If he is in decline, should he really even make the Indian side? Now, that is not a useful question – because his selection to the national side depends on whether or not he is better than anyone who he might be replaced with, not on whether he is as good as he was 10 years ago. Tendulkar is in decline, but ever the student, he is attempting to be a different batsman, and not just a lesser batsman. That suggests that he still really does want to play. Add to that the fact that he is still miles ahead (thanks to his experience and his understanding of his experience) of next batsman in India (barring Dravid), and it is clear that his place is not under threat. Put very simply, if the realistic range of results which Tendulkar is capable of achieving is superior to that which anyone else is capable of achieving, then that is the framework within which Tendulkar’s place and his quality should be discussed.
If you extend that to captains – the argument becomes very simple – any discussion about the quality of captains which ignores the realistic range of results which the batsmen and bowlers in the captains team are capable of achieving, does not do them justice. Because this range is a difficult and complicated reference, stereotypes cast in hackneyed prose are the norm. Thus Tendulkar is slowing down, Dravid the captain is unspiring and every other cricketer who ever achieved anything is one thing or the other……
