Skip to main content

A cricketing chapter closes

Its been nearly a month now since Tendulkar announced his retirement from one-day internationals but I don't think its fully sunk in for me that I won't ever see him walk out to open the batting again in the India blues. Even though my first foray into following cricket was the fifty over world cup in 1987, I soon got hooked onto Test match cricket and have never really felt as passionately for the limited overs format since. Since the 1990s, one-day cricket (except World Cups) for me has always been more about following my favourite cricketers and how they perform and Tendulkar has always been in the top three in that list.

The numbers of course are awe-inspiring but what's more staggering is the consistency with which he kept churning them out over such a long period. To average nearly 45 over 463 matches boggles the mind to a degree I wouldn't have imagined possible. 463 matches. In terms of days of cricket, that equates to over 90 Test matches. The next closest (Jayasuriya) played only 18 ODIs fewer than Tendulkar but 84 fewer Test matches. And his closest rival in terms of hundreds (Ponting) made 19 fewer (30 vs. Tendulkar's 49). Amongst all 35 players who have scored 10 or more hundreds in ODIs, only two (Hashim Amla and Virat Kohli) take fewer innings to score a hundred (6 and 7.1 respectively vs. 9.2 for Tendulkar). And both of them are yet to play even a hundred games each so odds on that they will be behind Tendulkar soon.

But its not just the numbers that make it memorable. At the end of the day what will stay in mind for me is all of those magical innings that he played over 20+ years. The collaring of Abdul Qadir in '89, the rise to opener in '94, the World Cup in '96, Sharjah in '98, the 186* vs NZ in '99, the World Cup (again) in '03, the CB series finals in '08, the 175 vs Aus in '09, the double hundred against SA in '10, the list is endless. And the one magical non-innings moment will be his teammates chairing him after his biggest dream (India winning the world cup) finally came true at his fifth attempt. He was the last survivor amongst my five favourite "cricketers-I've-watched-the-most" (Waugh, Ambrose, Warne, and Akram being the others). The day is not far when he'll play his last Test match and when that day comes, my love of the game will probably not diminish but some corner of my cricketing mind will find that a certain door has shut forever.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

Of backward selections and England's future

A couple of interesting selectorial decisions recently by England and India (and actually as its turning out Australia as well!). For once I think the England selectors didn't panic and showed the right thinking by not picking either Key or Ramprakash for the Oval Test. And luckily for them, both Bell and Trott have performed well enough to vindicate the decision. India on the other hand have actually gone the other way bringing Dravid back to the one-day squad. I'm a bit ambivalent on that one. While the decision to leave out Rohit Sharma and retain Raina was certainly the right one, bringing back Dravid is questionable. It would have been a bolder decision to pick someone like Kohli or Rahane who both played really well in the Emerging Players Trophy recently, mainly because Dravid is quite unlikely to feature in the 2011 World Cup so why bring him back now? As for the Aussies, they will certainly be regretting not picking Nathan Hauritz for the Oval. A defensive decision if...
Post a Comment
Read more

England in the 90s revisited and oh, for backup bowlers!

So its come to this finally. As the cliche goes, the wheel comes full circle. Australian selection policies these days resemble that of England from the 1990s :-) Took a quick look at the last two years and over 37 Test matches since 1 Jan 2008, Australia have used 36 different players. That's an average of roughly one additional/new player every 1.48 matches! Talk about instability. When compared to India (a new player every 1.94 matches), South Africa (2.14), England (2.24) it shows how things have changed in the last two years with regards to the power balance in Test cricket. What the overall stat also does not show directly is that most of these new players have been bowlers. With the exception of replacing Hayden and Symonds the batting line-up has been quite stable but the bowling has been the exact opposite. Indian spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Ashwin, and Murali Kartik must be ruing the fact that they don't have an Australian passport! The latter in parti...
2 comments
Read more