Osman Samiuddin's love-hate relationship as both a Sachin fan and a Pakistan supporter

[SachDan]

In recalling a Sachin Tendulkar moment, it must be acknowledged that there is no small, hidden gem somewhere that others are unlikely to have seen, like the single of a cherished band recorded during lost days available only in B-side bootlegs. His great innings, his great failures, his shots: put together, everyone remembers everything about him. There is no exclusivity in the Tendullkar experience. This is no crib, merely proof that true greatness seeps through all over the universe. Still, there is a three-ball mini epic. It came in 2003, at Centurion which is not as intimidating a venue as the name suggests, in a World Cup game against Pakistan. It was built on the battle with Shoaib Akhtar, in a way bigger than the game itself. A rabid machismo and jingoism was polluting the air; Shoaib was strutting, Virender Sehwag was too but with greater discretion. Waqar. Wasim were around, Ganguly was captain; you could smell it off the TV in lounges everywhere. First came the six, reaching and tipped over deep point as if he were helping a speedy ball along to its inevitable destination. Immediately it went into folklore. This part was mano-a-mano, man on man: who has the biggest? Second came the flick through square leg, which is not so much a shot as it is the autograph on all his innings. This part was Sachin against Shoaib, wristy Indian batting taking on full length Pakistani fast bowling, tradition. dashing with tradition. Authority built, now dominance had to be shown. It came with the third part, the most magnificent and the one Tendulkar shot which I cannot forget It was a good ball, on a length, outside off and quick. TendulkarÃÔ response looked appropriate; a discreet shuffle into line, straight bat down in defense, bat swing dead on contact with ball, good defence. Except, as the ball gathered pace past the stumps and much to the left of mid-on, and gradually to tease mid-on all the way to the boundary, it revealed itself to be, astoundingly, a stroke of attack. Man on man, tradition against tradition and now, with finality, genius against mortal: nothing more was to come from that match for Pakistan. Over the previous week I had been having a discussion with my father. He is a retired professor of statistics and around that time had begun to get into the game, having avoided it through much of his life. We were comparing Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid. My father, logician and statistician, argued that instead of calculating batting averages, we should calculate standard deviations, which are essentially a more accurate gauge of consistency; a measure of how fbr a hatsman, each time he goes to the crease, will deviate from his average. Dravid you will find, my father said, will have a lower SD, proof thus that he is a more consistent batsman which within the world of statistics is gold and must necessarily mean that he is the better. My father is not an inflexible man though, so having seen that shot and then the rest of that innings - he acknowledged that yes, perhaps Dravid cannot do that. The first time I saw Tendulkar bat live in a Test was in an empty; clean stadium in Multan in 2004. To watch him bat to nobody was to take him out of his permanent context and follow just his game. And yet, I remember almost nothing of his innings. It went entirely as a matter of fact: friendly pitch, hot days, thick fast bowlers, Tendulkar hundred. In light of Virender SehwagÃÔ treble, it was almost an apologetic affair; ÃÉeÃÔ got so many, I might as well chip in. At 194 it wasnÃÕ insubstantial. The real story, of course, was Dravid - leading in place of Sourav Ganguly - declaring with Tendulkar on 194. At the press conference at the end of the day, Tendulkar said, with little obvious emotion, Å°bviously, IÃÎ a little disappointed, having got so close. I was aware that the declaration was just around the corner, but when it came, I was taken by surprise. That was all it took. Soon I became aware of Tendulkar of India, and the vast machine that makes that so. Swiftly this beast whirred into action, too swift for something of that mass and size for the action to be particularly considered. All of India had a point to make, Ganguly had orchestrated the whole thing, of course he had, for he was Bengali and the grand manipulator of everything including the sun. TendulkarÃÔ selfishness had finally been exposed. Dravid was not as seedho or shoreefas he looked, something was up between him and Tendulkar. There had been a failure of communication. Tendulkar hadnÃÕ come out to field because he was upset. Everyone knew something, many eyebrows were raised, double-takes taken, winks and whispers offered. The noise was unlike any IÃÅ heard. Meaning was sought: What did it mean for India, this declaration, for it most mean something in this age where every action must have equal and opposite meaning? Tendulkar was so big that declaring on him was not just a captainÃÔ policy statement, it was a vision statement charting out a new future. Authoritative voices said it was the start of a new time. Team success, not individual glory) would now be important. Parallels came to mind. Imran Khan declaring on Javed Miandad in 1982-83 in Hyderabad, with Miandad on 280, was one, though only a superficial one of captain denying his best batsman the chance of an individual landmark. The better parallel is an earlier one also from Imran, when he dropped his cousin Majid Khan in his very first Test as captain; to players that was a decision that signalled a change of culture, that mel-it and nothing else, would now matter. The Tendulkar dilemma is an eternal one of team sport: fitting individual talent into a team structure to the harm of neither. With him it has been, at times, acute. Despite having several floe batsmen alongside him from early in his career, hopes, odds, prayers and focus always rested most intensely on Tendulkar. His interests and fortunes have been those of IndiaÃÔ; he scored runs, India scored runs and if he didnÃÕ, India usually didnÃÕ. Multan, though, came during a time when IndiaÃÔ Fab Five middle order (even if Ganguly was absent) was establishing itself as the best middle order around and among the best ever. Sehwag, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Ganguly meant there were others scoring big runs not just Tendulkar. The pressure was finally off, though with it went a little of the spotlight. His contribution, vital still, was no longer as critical, perhaps even no longer as feted as it ooce was. Sehwag, once a Tendulkar clone, was now just the freshest, most unique thing in batting, donÃÕ you know? Dravid had become the wall on which new India was built, Laxman the charm and magic to which it was irretrievably wedded. Ganguly had changed India altogether. Among the easy stereotypes where went Tendulkar? Multan was, to me, about the adjustment back of a star to the galaxy around him. TeodulkarÃÔ comment, of which there was criticism, was ao honest expression of personal disappointment. It was also a reflection of change and most intriguingly, the merest slip of the veneer of Tendulkar the icon to reveal Teodulkar the human. Not many stars as big as him have come to terms comfortably with any realignment of either their role in a side or their place in the lights. Yet many years from the event now, many runs, hundreds and wins later, is there any outward, even tiny sign that he has handled that in any way other than the best? Could he be one of the few subcontinent stars to retire right and grow old gracefully? Pakistan, I suspect, would love to have Tendulkar as he was in Chennai in january 1999 every time. He fought the good fight that Test, a solitary one. His second-innings hundred had all in it to warrant appreciation even if it might be grudging across all divides of nationality. But that he couldnÃÕ take India over the line ultimately kept things in tidy, relieved balance; not quite Cardus wanting to watch a Trumper hundred as Australia crumbled to England, but more, in our unique dance of love and hate, Miandad hitting that last ball for two, or not hitting it at all in Sharjah. In this dance there is the recognition of a genuine master, even if he is from the enemy land, But there is also schadenfreude at his failure, because he is from the enemy land. Chennai is particularly relevant for the manner of its denouement, of Tendulkar not leading India to a win. Here was more proof of his one perceived chink, a confused amalgam of his low fourth innings average and an inability to be there at the end when matches are won or lost. Pakistanis have latched on to this with particular conviction, without fail pulling out InzamŽ*-almauql?sl remarkable matchwinning hundreds stat (17 of his 25 hundreds were in winning Tests; only 20 of TendulkarÃÔ 50, by contrast). If the numbers didnÃÕ prove it then there was always lmranÃÔ early decree God-like as they all were that lnzamam was the more talented batsman to fall back on, an assessment as open to shredding as most of ImranÃÔ woolly political thinking. And if, finally, you insist on recalling InzamamÃÔ own poor record against the best bowling attacks of his day, Australia and South Africa, then thereÃÔ always Brian Lara. There is more to this than just the kind of childish envy you often come across in this relationship. Pakistan can rightly feel like the household that got away with only superficial damage in the midst of a hurricane as far as Tendulkar is concerned. No real, lasting scars were inflicted upon them byTendulkar, none of the kind MiandadÃÔ six, for example, left. There were occasions of course) the Moltans and Centurions and Chennais, but over a 20-year career Pakistan takes a certain pride in his averages against them in all forms being considerably less than his career averages. And they probably chuckle at the men who have dismissed him most often. In the land of Imran and the Ws, the legend-lite troika of Abdul Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood and Aaqib Javed have had the most success against him in ODIs. Shoaib Akhtar and Saqlain Mushtaq have got him thrice each in Tests, but so has Shahid Afridi. Mostly, TendulkarÃÔ Indo-Pak experience has been an underwhelming one. Indeed a far deeper wound has already been left by Sehwag in the modern age; a treble, two doubles and a 90-plus Test average are taunts within which hide a particularly cruel, expressionless delight in ripping apart pace bowlers, the very heart of PakistanÃÔ pride and chauvinism all these years. TendulkarÃÔ last visit to Pakistan, in 2006, was his worst. He scored 63 runs in a three-Test series infested with easy runs, troubled persistently by quick, short bowling. His only notable contribution was to tabloidism, his age and poor form the subject of the greatest headline ever involving Tendulkar, age and poor form: ændulkar? A sub editor chuclded, a nation gasped and its neighbour sniggered. Four years, 40-plus Tests, over 3000 runs, thirteen lOOs, fourteen SOs and a very modern 53-ish average later, only one man is laughing. TendulkarÃÔ place in his country is a place unoccupied by any player around the globe. For over twenty years he has been in this harsh space, which breaks a man wholly and comfortably. Yet, heÃÔ barely been scratched, as man, as batsman. He now has the most of everything, hundreds, runs, matches, money. Still he plays on, scoring doubles in ODIs, bouncing into the IPL like a fresh, unseen child, so clearly and purely in love with what he does. He came at a time of great change in his country and perhaps became an agent for change in the countryÃÔ cricket, He was, they said, the face for a new India on and off the field. That makes him now the old face of a newer India and somehow in essence he remains unchanged. Endurance and commitment are only heard about in their absence. _________________________ Great read :hatsoff: This is an article from the book 'Sachin - Genius Unplugged'..PJilka is having this book and on request he sent it to me few days back...once again thanks for sharing, PJ :icflove:

[achilles]

Good one by Osman sahab. PS- This article as long as a book.

[SachDan]

Good one by Osman sahab. PS- This article as long as a book.

You won't find this article anywhere in the internet world other than ICF :P

[achilles]

Thats great. How did you get it? Don't tell me you typed it out for us.

[CSK Fan]

Sad that Sachin could never play Pakistan in his prime

[sarcastic]

Sad that Sachin could never play Pakistan in his prime

what abt pak tour of 1999! That incredible 136:dance:

[Hur Rizvi]

Sad that Sachin could never play Pakistan in his prime

That would have been amazing cricketing fight between greats if sachin at his prime would have played against 2 W's at their prime .....

[CSK Fan]

what abt pak tour of 1999! That incredible 136:dance:

That would have been amazing cricketing fight between greats if sachin at his prime would have played against 2 W's at their prime .....

Yes, we missed some amazing cricket between the two rivals during the cold war period