Ian Chappell’s comments about Sachin Tendulkar, have invited swift reaction in the press – who – true patriots that they are must have taken the trouble to contact a number of ex-cricketers and ask for their views on Chappell’s remarks. Other important questions have also been posed. Tendulkar also features prominently in other “inside” scoops – untold stories of a scandalous debacle. Everything from disharmony and disagreements to ego problems and communication gaps have been cited, each supported by their own evidence as the reasons behind India being dumped from the World Cup.
All this analysis reveals an unhealthy, misguided obsession with the phenomenon that is the Indian Cricket team, and a complete disregard for the idea of sport. Chappell makes his observations very well – without being apologetic about the fact that he is treading on dangerous ground (he doesn’t live in India, or else his house might have been stoned by now). Chappell’s article intends and succeeds in its intention of provoking thought.
Chappell’s introduction of Brian Lara into the debate is in my view flawed, because Lara’s position in the West Indies side as batsman is very different from Tendulkar’s position in the Indian side. Lara has always been the preeminent batsman in his side – a situation Tendulkar found himself in through out the 1990’s and thrived in. Tendulkar’s decline as a batsman – thanks to injuries and the wear and tear that must inevitably come from playing international cricket for 17 out of his 33 years, has coincided with an improvement in India’s overall batting side. From being the linchpin of the side, Tendulkar has been reduced to being a crippled elder passenger. I don’t think that sits too well with the great man. Further, the position in which he made his name as an ODI batsman – where he remains unsurpassed in modern day cricket has now been taken away from him. With Lara on the other hand – whatever his own form/fitness situation might have been, his position as the pre-eminent West Indies batsman has never been in question. Lara has had numerous slumps in his career, where as the last two years represent Tendulkar’s first significant slump in his 17 year career.
How has Tendulkar reacted to the changes – to his injury woes and his batting decline? By all accounts, his response to injury has been exemplary. Inspite of so called fitness concerns, Tendulkar runs between wickets better than all Indian batsmen bar Yuvraj Singh, he fields better than all Indian batsmen bar Yuvraj Singh, has proved more adaptable (in terms of run output) than all Indian batsmen bar Rahul Dravid. The record suggests this. So his response to these developments has been above reproach. It is equally true that his batting has been in decline. He is no longer the best batsman in the world, possibly not even the best batsman in India. Even though his place in the side is never going to be in question (because he is still miles ahead of the next best Indian batsmen – something which is not the case in Australia – Michael Hussey was pushing Damien Martyn for a Test place and is clearly as good as Martyn), Tendulkar now finds himself a prisoner of his past.
Should he retire? Hes not too old, hes still clearly good enough to play for India – in terms of batting and fielding. Does he want to retire? Clearly, thats not something anybody other than him can say with any authority. Should we leave him alone? That is something only we can answer with authority. The debate is not about whether or not Tendulkar is good enough to continue – it is about whether he is still needed. In my view, he is absolutely needed.
If we look at “Team” rather than individual, he is needed. If we look at “individual”, then it has to be his decision. This is a paradox – the commentary in the press on the one hand is about “stars” and “individuals” and the lack of “Team”. And yet, the discussion when it comes to real issues, rarely progresses beyond the long, dark shadow of the “star”. When Greg Chappell refers to “player development” and “youth” and “process” – these are treated as buzzwords. When Kiran More talks about “player development” – and points to a stellar record – both in terms of results and giving young players the opportunity to play international cricket and actually identifying who is and isn’t ready, people can’t look beyond his alleged unfavorable equation to Ganguly and in some cases beyond his less than compelling hold over the English language.
In Tendulkar’s case, it is a matter of him reinventing himself as an India player. The player development process which had to be put on hold in order to cobble together a World Cup side, which has failed and proven Chappell and More right (in purely cricketing terms, all though this is an argument which patriotic Indians are unlikely to understand, mainly because they are not the sort of worry about the details of arguments), involves not only the unearthing and nurturing of new players, but also of the reinvention of established players.
Ajay Shankar of the Indian Express is the classic example of a journalist getting sucked into the disappointment of defeat and losing perspective. That article (linked above) is not reporting – it is a collection of disappointed confessions which are of no consequence. There is as much disagreement in the Indian camp as there has been in the Australian camp. The difference is that the average quality of cricketer in the Australian XI is superior to that in the Indian XI, thus ensuring results – which paper over the cracks like nothing else.
So should Tendulkar retire? Thats the wrong question to ask. The real question is – how can Tendulkar contribute in his remaining years as an international cricketer? Captaincy is only on the far horizon, all though his appointment as vice-captain is an admission of the fact the fact that there is nobody in the new generation who is good enough to be a future captain. There was Kaif, but he doesn’t make the Test team or the ODI team. There was Sehwag, but its the same story with him.
I see the team management – Dravid (C), Tendulkar (VC) and Chappell (Coach) being retained – for a period of 12 months – until the end of the Australian tour. The national team clearly is not the problem area of Indian Cricket right now, and Tendulkar is the least of India’s problems. The real solutions lie in the India A fixtures and the revamp of the Ranji Trophy schedule. The Australians took 13 years of rebuilding (from 1987 – 2000) in order to become the best team in the world. Lets not fool ourselves that India will get there any sooner.
I would however make one suggestion to Tendulkar – something he may want to think about as he decides what he wants to achieve in the next few years – that he should retire from ODI cricket and concentrate on Mumbai and Test Cricket. There is no question that this will hurt India’s ODI side. But it will have a beneficial effect on Cricket in general in India – in that it will reduce the profile of ODI cricket and raise the profile of domestic cricket.
If Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar concentrate on First Class Cricket and Test Cricket, it will be the best possible thing for Cricket in India. And by that i mean for the way it is percieved.
Update: I am not making the argument that Tendulkar should join Kumble in retirement. Make no mistake – Kumble as an ODI player has been past his prime since about 2003, while Tendulkar is still one of the top 3 ODI batsmen in India. Tendulkar should retire, even though he would walk into the ODI side, because he needs to take the lead in conveying a message which the public needs to recieve and take on board. Kumble’s is a far more conventional retirement.
However, both have an equally important role to play in domestic and Test cricket.
Kartikeyadate's Weblog 