Tendulkar wears pressure with a quiet dignity

[King]

More... Tendulkar wears pressure with a quiet dignity Tendulkar’s innings in Trent Bridge was stirring, writes Rohit Brijnath There is no truth to the rumour that Sachin Tendulkar has mailed a videotape of his painstakingly-constructed, match-tilting, rudely-interrupted 91 at Trent Bridge to Kapil Dev, with the words “What was that you said about pressure, paaji?” scrawled across the package. Tendulkar wouldn’t do that. Because he’s too polite. Because if he did, it would mean Kapil’s recent criticism had got to him. Because he’s heard this genius-who-can’t-win-matches stuff more often than Ganguly’s heard that “princely” nonsense which Western journalists imaginatively whip up every time they sight the Bengal player. Kapil was just nimbly leaping onto a crumbling old bandwagon recently with his doubting of the extent of Tendulkar’s talent. After 37 Test centuries, and 11,000-plus runs, this “question mark” over Sachin is tedious. We can hurl stats, for and against the notion, at each other for 10 days running, but it’s hysterical to suggest that “Tendulkar should start taking the pressure”. Has Tendulkar ‘not’ taken the pressure? Have these 18 years of staying sane and performing as a nation howls for runs been just, you know, a stroll in a Bandra park? Was all that rescuing of India, all those forgotten years ago, when opponents used to say, openly, “Get Tendu out and India’s shoulders droop”, no big deal? Damn, he ate a pressure for breakfast Tiger Woods would have choked on. Time has flown But this is partially Tendulkar’s fault. People forget the player he was because they see the player he is. Time has flown and his majesty in the mid-1990s unscrolls in the mind like a fuzzy, hiccuping videotape. The clearer picture is not of the warrior rising amidst a Sharjah dust-storm, but of a man being beaten outside off by a bowler he’d have once dismissed into retirement. The longer he looks mortal the more room he gives former players to unkindly dissect his legend. Priestly discipline Still, Tendulkar’s innings in Trent Bridge was stirring. It showed what he can’t do, but also what he can. If his command was absent, his discipline was priestly. His face told us nothing of the wars in his mind, for he is an old pro who gives nothing away. He was beaten, he took guard, he played on, pure in his mission, refusing to bend to an instinct to lash out. India needed patience and, cocooned in concentration, he did not let India down. How vital the century that never came was for him, how keenly he required the validation of three figures, was evident in his reaction. After 139 Tests, he is old friends with the dubious decision, but his innate courteousness has meant he swallows injustices and moves on. It’s the only way he knows how to play cricket. But this time he staged a gentle, two-second dharna of disbelief at the crease. An ageing hero, who is in the middle of that awkward journey when the next cen tury is no longer a case of “when” but “if”, was hurting. Tendulkar has not merely worn pressure, but done so with a quiet dignity. Indeed, an entire generation of players, from Dravid to Kumble, has ensured that India, for all its other cricketing excesses, has a reputation for on-field decency. And young Sreesanth must not be allowed to tarnish it. There is room in sport for the colourful and the eccentric but none for shoulder charging and constant mouthing off. It is no good if you can neither bowl, nor behave. Hosts are confused No doubt the English have shown the Indians inadequate respect, but it is because the hosts are confused. Some bizarre metamorphosis has occurred in the dressing room wherein the English now think they are Australian, and believe mental disintegration is achieved by throwing jelly beans on a crease. John Buchanan must be aching with laughter at England’s interpretation of aggressive cricket. But it is immaterial if the hosts started the unpleasantness, for India must always demand a higher standard of itself. And only an insecure team needs to respond in kind just to prove that it won’t be pushed around. The only worthy response from India should come through a resolute performance, in refusing to disintegrate or be distracted. As England will confirm today, nothing stings quite like defeat.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

Brijnath writes well ! His T.V commentary sucked big time , but i love his articles. I wish someone could dig up his article on India victory in Leeds 2002 in the Wisden magazine. Easily one of the best victory tributes i have seen so far..

[Predator_05]

Brijnath is by far and away the best Indian writer. I've been reading his stuff for a long, long time...

[Donny]

Once again, overkill and emotive nonsense. This writer and other Sach fans seem to conveniently forget how many times he played and missed and edged through or just short of slips. If his innings was chanceless, it could have been written up as a good 'answer' to Kapil.

[Ram]

Once again, overkill and emotive nonsense. This writer and other Sach fans seem to conveniently forget how many times he played and missed and edged through or just short of slips. If his innings was chanceless, it could have been written up as a good 'answer' to Kapil.

What has playing and missing and the ball landing just short of slips got to do with dealing pressure ? Pressure refers to the circumstances in which the runs were made , and not how they were made.

[Donny]

Everything. There would be no article if any one of Sidebottom's 'beating the bat' deliveries had taken the edge.

[Ram]

Everything. There would be no article if any one of Sidebottom's 'beating the bat' deliveries had taken the edge.

Honestly, its like saying - There would be no Sachin Tendukar if his parents hadnt married each other. And in similar lines , There would be no Australian world cup Champions If Gibbs hadnt dropped Steve Waugh in the league match. Or , There would be no world cup finalists had Klusener hammered the 4th ball of the over from Damien Fleming for another boundary. Or , there would have no fairy-tale send off for Steve Waugh , had Parthiv Patel not missed an easy stumping of Ricky Ponting on the 5th day of the Sydney Test match in 2004. It is these moments of fortune/mis-fortune that characterize the greatness of the game. You have indulged in mere speculation , just to down-play Sachin's innings.

[King]

There is no second thought about the quality of that knock. Sachin showed a lot of character. It would have been easy to just play couple of extra shots and walk away but he did get struck in. What makes it even better is that he scored 90 odd runs after being struck on the helmet. Moreover you never know what would have Sachin ended up with if Taufel didn't make that silly mistake. I know of no batsman that wasn't beaten consistently. I don't know if this knock answers any of the questions raised by Kapil Dev but this knock was very crucial for India to win this test match.

[Donny]

To mm: No. Not really. 1. Wrong. SRT's parents didn't need to be married to produce baby Sachin. 2. Wrong. Completely Hypothetical as Waugh was not the last wicket. Any of the next batsmen could've got the runs he got. 3. Correct. 4. There was no fairytale send off for Steve Waugh. He was out 20 runs short of a century, Australia failed to get the runs and the Test was a draw. Hardly a fairytale send off. 5. I wasn't down playing his innings. Good luck to any batsman who survives so many mistakes to get to a Test 90. I was down playing the article.

[Donny]

Oh, I agree, Ravi. His knock was crucial and he did show character to keep going in difficult circumstances.

[King]

I wouldn't reckon based on this knock anyone can have a go at Kapil Dev. If Tendulkar is able to reinvent his old form of carry on in the same vein I'm sure it will silence people such as Kapil Dev forever. Another such knock in the next test to help India win the series will go a long way in establishing his old reputation as a match winner.

[Ram]

To mm: No. Not really. 1. Wrong. SRT's parents didn't need to be married to produce baby Sachin.

Ok.. lemme change it.. There wouldnt have been a Sachin Tendulkar had his parents not met each other at all . How does this sound ? You know that Sachin's " origins" is not the point we are trying to debate here. So , lets just get on with it.

2. Wrong. Completely Hypothetical as Waugh was not the last wicket. Any of the next batsmen could've got the runs he got.

ANY of the last batsman ? Waugh's innings carried the day for Australia. He single-handedly took them to victory that day. Leaving aside the prospects of " Anything is possible " , If Gibbs had latched on to that catch , 99.9% Australia would lost that match.

3. Correct.

An admission of a statement doesnt take away the pointlessness of the argument. You had told that if Sachin's edges had carried , nobody would have been talking about his innings. I say , that is not even a valid point to raise in the first place.

4. There was no fairytale send off for Steve Waugh. He was out 20 runs short of a century, Australia failed to get the runs and the Test was a draw. Hardly a fairytale send off.

Much better than a rare home-series defeat for a captain playing his last test match i would say. Waugh helped Australia save that match from a non-winnable situation. That , in my opinion , is a fitting farewell.

5. I wasn't down playing his innings. Good luck to any batsman who survives so many mistakes to get to a Test 90. I was down playing the article.

Then why say that he wouldnt have made what he did , if he had out earlier ? Doesnt it lack cricketing logic ? Brijnath ( the author of that article) is no mindless Sachin supporter. He is a very respected columnist who comes up with some fantastic pieces of cricket commentary.

[Chaos]

goodness me Donny, Every "good" innings Ricky Ponting played has TONS OF MISTAKES. Take SA series in SA, where his catches were dropped atleast 2 times in each hundred he got. PUNTER = Pure luck.

[Donny]

It would help if you wrote what you actually meant, mm. 'fitting farewell' does not equal 'fairy-tale farewell'. One doesn't need 'cricketing logic' to determine a batsman would've made less runs than he did if he'd been out earlier.

[Donny]

Mouni, how does Punter come into this topic ? What's the connection ?

[Ram]

It would help if you wrote what you actually meant, mm. 'fitting farewell' does not equal 'fairy-tale farewell'. One doesn't need 'cricketing logic' to determine a batsman would've made less runs than he did if he'd been out earlier.

You havent yet answered any of my question yet Donny. Dont play around with technicalities of what i said and what i didnt. Assume i that i accept my failing in calling Steve Waugh's last innings a "fairly-tale" ending. Now , lets get back to the debate shall we ? Waiting for your answers to the actual questions..

[Donny]

Actual questions ? I must have missed them. I addressed the question you posed in the last sentence. How could you not see it ? You quoted me. :regular_smile:

[The Outsider]

This writer and other Sach fans seem to conveniently forget how many times he played and missed and edged through or just short of slips. If his innings was chanceless, it could have been written up as a good 'answer' to Kapil.

Look at the book, Donny.

[Ram]

"An admission of a statement doesnt take away the pointlessness of the argument. You had told that if Sachin's edges had carried , nobody would have been talking about his innings. I say , that is not even a valid point to raise in the first place." - Does this not sound like a query/poser worth answering , to you ?