Criticism of Greatness

Is imitation the highest form of flattery? I think criticism is an equally exalted form and it seems to be the more attractive option when it comes to journalism.

I read two articles yesterday, one from The Guardian and the other from The Telegraph and I was surprised to find that the central topic of debate in both articles is the same - Tendulkar, his failure at Lords and the loss of his once brilliant armory of strokes, apparently replaced by a fear of the short ball and failure in general.

Interestingly both articles use success at Lord's as a measure of greatness, a huge flaw considering the fact that the single most stellar batting performance at Lord's is by a batsman, definitely not considered to be amongst the cream of all time greats (333 and 123 against India in 1990 by Graham Gooch). The last Indian name to make it to the Lords honors board is the person so affectionately named "Bombay Duck" and "Olympic Rings" (in honor of his 5 consecutive ducks against Australia) and I can bet the last dollar in my wallet that Ajit Agarkar will not feature in your all time cricketing XI. Also, given the number of grounds Sachin has played in, there are bound to be ones where he has a bad average; he averages a monumental 249 runs at Sydney, which certainly highlights the triviality of the argument.

The article in the Telegraph points to Sachin's meticulous preparation before a series as an evidence of his fear of failure. I find it amusing that, ironically, both articles also refer to the preparation that the genius made in 1998 to counter Shane Warne's bowling around the wicket and the 155 n.o that resulted out of it (an innings that I had the fortune of witnessing live from the pavilion at Chepauk courtesy of an umpire cousin). To me, what is evident is the will to succeed and not the fear of failure. I still remember watching the game and listening to Ian Chappell on the microphone pointing out to the moment when Warne came around the wicket for the first time in the match as the turning point. Sachin slightly opened up his stance, marched down the wicket and majestically lofted the first ball over midwicket for a six, dictating the tone for that series, at the end of which the spin wizard proudly admitted to having nightmares of Sachin dancing down the pitch. Admiration, it seems, is an even greater form of flattery.

Though the author correctly notes the decline in Sachin's game by referring to the fact that in the last three years, Sachin has scored only one century against a notable opponent (Sri Lanka), he fails to mention that the period was interspersed by serious injuries, often limiting his participation to one or two games followed by a long layoff. Every great sportsman goes through a patch of mediocrity but they often bounce back with minor technical changes to the surprise of the world. Tiger Woods did that by changing his swing a couple of years ago after a 3-year lean period. Whether Sachin follows suit - only time will tell.

Finally, whether Sachin Tendulkar scores a test hundred at Lords or not, whether he is addressed "Sir Sachin" in the near future or not, his greatness has diminished or not, is immaterial; I and more than a billion others will always remember the man as an entertainer par excellence, who gave good value for their time and money.