Sachinism

[goose]

You're on! http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cricket/article3142084.ece Sachin Tendulkar unable to save India from truth It didn't happen, then, and perhaps it's as as well. Sachin Tendulkar was out for 91 and so he failed once again in his attempt to become the first man to score 100 international centuries, and perhaps the only man who ever will. It would have been a fine I-was-there sort of occasion. There were many people of Indian ancestry and origin in the crowd; they had filled out the place, scenting that the great moment was nigh. The mood, for as long as Tendulkar was batting, was nothing less than triumphal, a rum response to a series that was hammering towards a 4-0 whitewash. I quite like the idea of Tendulkar being marooned for ever on 99. It has the same humanising imperfection as the great statistic of Don Bradman, with his Test average of 99.94. Such narrow failure makes it clear that the person concerned was not sent from heaven to please us, that both are men who eat, sleep, defecate, and when you ***** them, they bleed red. Besides, this would not have been a great innings for the milestone. He was out, or should have been, five times before Tim Bresnan got him: two dropped catches, two unreviewable, ungiven leg-before decisions and, most bizarrely, a stumping on Sunday that Matt Prior, probably for the first and certainly for the last time in his life, failed to appeal for. There are other reasons why the missed milestone seemed an appropriate rather than an inappropriate thing. Perhaps the most important is that it would have come in a losing cause. Had Tendulkar made his ton of tons, there would have been rejoicing and glorying in that here before us, alive, breathing and manifestly Indian, was the greatest batsmen in the world and in every possible reckoning one of the two best ever. This would inevitably have taken the form of nationalist rejoicing and crowing triumphalism: India the greatest cricket nation on earth. People would have forgotten, or at least treated as a matter of infinitely less significance, that India have lost four Test matches by humiliating margins. This series should be seen in India as an embarrassment, not a triumph, if cricket means anything as a sport. Better, I think, to have had that perception unmuddied. India have not only been defeated, they have also at times played like men without common cause, reluctant to work for each other or share each other's concerns. It is more useful to examine these failings rather than celebrate an individual. Cricket has a curious tendency to value the individual above the team. The final accounting is in the results achieved by the team, but most of the myths and legends of the sport accumulate around the deeds of individuals. Most cricket followers know that the highest innings in Test cricket is Brian Lara's 400 not out against England; rather fewer could tell you the highest score by a team. (It's 952 for six declared by Sri Lanka in 1997, since you ask.) If cricket values the individual above the team, it has valued the statistic still higher. Though the hundredth hundred will be a formidable achievement, the idea of the game is to win matches, not to pile up personal numbers that show how good you are. Players are always telling us that stats don't matter and of course, they are all lying. They know that in the end, their individual stats will be a crucial aspect of the way they are judged against their contemporaries and against the players of other times. With batsmen, it's not the number of innings in a winning cause that count, it's the number of centuries. Tendulkar and Bradman are often compared. Bradman was always cricket's fixed point, the nonpareil, a player no one who followed could dream of emulating. But Tendulkar changed this. Among the first to understand this was John Woodcock, former cricket correspondent of The Times, who suggested that the two should now be considered equals. Different times, different game. Bradman never got to wear a helmet or pyjamas, but then Tendulkar didn't have to bat against as many third-raters as Bradman did. Both have quite staggering careers and their joint 99s make a very pleasing symmetry. Both were naturally appropriated as national figures in emerging nations, as potent symbols of a nation's strength. Bradman stood for Australia, emerging from British rule and trying, though abandoned, to cope with the Depression. Tendulkar stands for India's emergence as an economic power, no longer subservient to anyone, manifestly capable of being the best in the world. Nicolas Chauvin was a fictional French soldier who performed a million wonders pour la France and so gave us chauvinism. But India has Sachinism. Me, I don't find anything terribly elevating about hysterical nationalism, whether it comes from a former colonial power or a former colony. So perhaps the muted outbreak of Sachinism was appropriate to the Oval yesterday. Instead, India have the opportunity to wonder why a team with one of the two greatest batsmen in history and one of the finest batting line-ups of the modern era has failed so miserably. Tendulkar is a great player and no one will begrudge him his superstat when the time comes. Au contraire. He'll probably get it in a humdrum one-dayer on a chief executive's wicket in the *** end of the summer. His seraphic batting, his Zennish ability to play each ball on its merits no matter what is going on around him, have been a joy to watch again and again and again. His proximity to the superstat seems to be niggling him a little, though. For once something has penetrated his bubble of concentration. In the end, as so often in sport, winner and loser make an opposed pair. England are the team who deplore too much individuality, India produced a great individual who fell narrowly short of a superstat. It was the team who won; perhaps that's the most significant stat of them all.

[Sachinism]

Was there at Lords on Day 3 :( didn't happen. Nor at Oval. Next stop is whichever ODI is 1st Oval, Rose Bowl or Lords. Going to all 3 :yay:

[f.b.m]

I was there when he scored 56 in Trent Bridge but it wasn't to be :(. Truly a few horrible months for Indian cricket supporters.

[vamos_rafa]

an out of sync quote from the article in OP by Scyld Berry

He was nine runs away from scoring his 100th international century when the Australian Rod Tucker — always a bowler’s umpire — gave him leg-before-wicket and terminated India’s hopes of an individual success to compensate for their team’s failure. It was so much easier back then, in those days of youthful bravado. The 17 year-old Tendulkar flashed and crashed England’s quick bowlers through the offside. The Old Trafford pitch was truer than the Oval’s, the ball had virtually no seam that summer, and — above all — the home side’s players were not very good, serving the two masters of county and country as they had to do. On Monday England’s bowling proved too much, and maybe the expectations were too much as well. As in his World Cup semi-final innings against Pakistan at Mohali — the last time Tendulkar got close to a century — he became scratchier the longer he went on. It cannot be easy when you know a billion rupees change hands with every boundary you score. Tendulkar could have been given leg-before twice, and he was missed once behind the wicket and once at short leg off Graeme Swann. Back in 1990 England’s off-spinner was Eddie Hemmings, bowling steadily, but rolling not ripping it. Swann translates the fizz in his personality into his bowling. If Matt Prior were a safer keeper to spin, Tendulkar would never have got so close. For England to succeed in Asia this winter, Prior has to work on keeping his gloves wide open when standing up, as Alan Knott used to do. Tim Bresnan has to become the reverse-swing specialist before a second new ball becomes available, and Andrew Strauss, instead of being decent and straightforward, has to cunningly create the illusion that Swann is making things happen even when they are not. As Tendulkar became more uncertain yesterday, Amit Mishra began to bat more and more like his partner and easily outscored Tendulkar in their century stand (which was only the second that India have complied this summer, to go with two by Sri Lanka, against the 20 century partnerships by England). The truth is that we have learned more about Tendulkar this time - or rather his limitations - than on his four previous tours of England. He is the greatest accumulator since Sir Donald Bradman, dedicated to excellence and technical perfection, and records have fallen to him as a consequence. But he is not a competitor like Viv Richards was, or Rahul Dravid is. By nature Dravid is not confrontational either, like Tendulkar, but he is always striving to get the best out of himself whether batting or in the field: among his other feats, Dravid has taken far more Test catches than anyone. Whenever Gautam Gambhir has an injury, Dravid responds to the challenge of moving up a place in the order. When Zaheer Khan limped off on the first day at Lord’s, it ended any chance India had of winning this series but not necessarily of competing. If Tendulkar had brought his knowledge to bear at mid-off, instead of withdrawing to the boundary, and had talked India’s inexperienced seamers through each spell and sometimes each ball, as Zaheer does, India would not have folded as they did. Dravid averaged 76 in this Test series, Tendulkar 34, but ultimately it is not the numbers that matter. Dravid added to his reputation in this Test series; India’s other 38 year-old did not. Dravid asserted himself and proved to his team-mates that there was a way of counteracting the unrelenting accuracy and hostility of England’s pace bowlers; Tendulkar did not. So the 100th hundred may now come instead at Chester-le-Street, or Cardiff, in a one-day international. And it will be a fine accumulation of runs for certain, but not an innings that shaped the course of a Test series and dictated the flow of human events.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/india/8716761/England-v-India-Sachin-Tendulkars-limitations-have-been-exposed-on-this-troubled-tour.html

[Rahul Dravid]

everyone goes thru lean patches.. and im sure sachin will comeback strong. sooner than later.

[SachDan]

Who wrote it, Mike Atherton or Simon Wilde?

[Guest Gunner]

The truth is that we have learned more about Tendulkar this time - or rather his limitations - than on his four previous tours of England. He is the greatest accumulator since Sir Donald Bradman, dedicated to excellence and technical perfection, and records have fallen to him as a consequence. But he is not a competitor like Viv Richards was, or Rahul Dravid is. By nature Dravid is not confrontational either, like Tendulkar, but he is always striving to get the best out of himself whether batting or in the field: among his other feats, Dravid has taken far more Test catches than anyone.

As close to the mark as it is ever going to get.

[vamos_rafa]

As close to the mark as it is ever going to get.

So you think Sachin is not a competitor while RD is? Dravid was out of form for 4 years. Where had his competitiveness disappeared during that phase?

[achilles]

I have never agreed with Gunner more.

[kabira]

As close to the mark as it is ever going to get.

not entirely true..Sachin has won games with his bowling, he had sheer competitor on the field. Remember hero cup 92?? remember those two wickets in Adelaide.