October 14, 2013

A farewell left too late

Tendulkar's legacy has been diminished by his long twilight, and the team he served for so long with such distinction has been damaged too
379

Hang on, he hasn't left yet. The time to pay tribute, to lift our eyes from the here and now and celebrate a great career, to memorialise genius, will come when Sachin Tendulkar's cricketing life ends with the second Test against West Indies in late November. This is the time to debate the manner of his going, the timing of the departure. And no, it isn't bad form to do this: Tendulkar is an active player; embalming fluids like reverence and nostalgia can wait.

The last great Bombay batsman retired without notice. He played one of the great innings against spin bowling on a pitch that turned square, 96 in a losing cause against Pakistan in Bangalore and left. He was 37. He was in the form of his life: his last 25 outings had yielded four centuries and six fifties at an average of over 58.

Tendulkar's retirement, in contrast, has been chronically foretold. Not by him but by his bearish batting form. In his last 25 innings Tendulkar has scored four fifties, no centuries, and has averaged under 30, more than 20 runs off his career average. He is 40; he has been in decline for at least two years.

Enoch Powell famously wrote, "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs." Substitute "political" and "politics" with "cricket" and you have the justification offered by Tendulkar's partisans for his unwillingness to acknowledge cricketing mortality. Don't all cricketing lives taper off, they ask. Why shouldn't a genius like Tendulkar be allowed to rage against the dying of the light?

If this is a serious question, not just a rhetorical flourish, it's worth answering. First, there is nothing inevitable about great batsmen eking out unworthy ends. Not all cricketing lives end in failure; some manage the proverbial blaze of glory. Look at Sunil Gavaskar and his valedictory 96. And if Gavaskar belongs to the past, that foreign country where things are done differently, let us look at Tendulkar's contemporaries.

Steve Waugh's last series - against India - was a PR spectacular, so it's almost unfair to compare that leave-taking with anyone else's, but it's worth noticing that the run-up to that climax was pretty impressive too. Waugh's last 25 innings include five centuries, six fifties, and his average in this final phase of his career makes Gavaskar's seem modest: Waugh averaged close to 65 per innings.

His compatriot Ricky Ponting makes for an interesting comparison. He is Tendulkar's nearest contemporary, 38 years old to Tendulkar's 40, and he played his last Test a year before Tendulkar is scheduled to play his, almost to the day. Like Tendulkar, Ponting was criticised for lingering after his "best-by" date. But for someone who overstayed his welcome, the 25 innings rule-of-thumb tells us that Ponting averaged 38 to Tendulkar's 28. He also managed to produce a century and a double-century through this batting twilight.

But it is the comparison with Brian Lara, by common consensus Tendulkar's greatest batting contemporary and his closest contender for the title of the best batsman of the fin de siècle, that speaks most directly to the "dying of the light" argument. Look at Lara's last 25 innings. He averaged just under 45, more than ten runs an innings better than Tendulkar, but that's almost beside the point: it is his big scores that stand out.

Children ought to be indulged, not great men, and Tendulkar is an immortal. We are such a needy nation that as a cricketing public we have created a force field that has skewed the game's priorities and conflated Tendulkar's well-being with the good of cricket

Lara hit two centuries and two double-centuries in his last year of Test match cricket. These centuries were scored against substantial teams: Australia, India and Pakistan. For a team in near terminal decline, against strong opposition, Lara fought magnificent rearguard actions; in the grim desert of West Indian decline, he blazed like a brand; he raged against the dying of the light. Teams give ageing, inconsistent geniuses the benefit of the doubt because they believe they are still capable of match-turning bursts of inspiration. Lara repaid that faith; Tendulkar hasn't.

Over the last two years Tendulkar has been more accountant than artist. His ledger is filled with entries that tally quantity and longevity. He has a 100 international hundreds, over 34,000 international runs, and by the time the Wankhede Test is done, he will have become the first cricketer in the history of the game to have played 200 Test matches.

Over the last two years he has plodded towards these landmarks with all the flair of a time-serving journeyman. From being a batsman who brought to the crease the intent of Viv Richards in a rage, he has become a batsman as intent on self-preservation as Boycott batting out a bad patch.

Does it matter? He remains the greatest batsman of his generation and India under Dhoni are once again near the top of the Test match tree. Tendulkar carried India, so the argument goes, for more than 20 years: can't India carry him for two?

No. It can and has, but it shouldn't have. Children ought to be indulged, not great men, and Tendulkar is an immortal. These two years have damaged Tendulkar, the Indian team and cricket as an international game.

Kapil Dev prolonged his career painfully as he chased after Richard Hadlee's then-record aggregate of wickets. By the time he huffed and puffed his way past the mark, a career marked by loose-limbed grace had begun to seem a little laboured and leaden. And for what? With Murali on his Everest, Kapil's summit begins to look like base camp. In much the same way, Tendulkar's legacy has been diminished by his long twilight.

The team he served for so long with such distinction has been damaged too. If he had left, as Dravid did, in early 2012, after the rout in Australia, India's middle order might have completed its post-Galactico transition earlier. Shikhar Dhawan, Murali Vijay, Virat Kohli, Cheteshwar Pujara, Rohit Sharma and company might not have set the world on fire if Tendulkar had left then, but they would have been hard put to do much worse than he did during this time.

Most importantly, if Tendulkar had retired earlier, India might not be playing an unscheduled two-Test engagement against West Indies at the expense of a proper Test series against South Africa, Test cricket's top-ranked team. It is no secret that this attenuated "series" against one of the less formidable Test sides in contemporary cricket was likely dreamt up by the BCCI to give Tendulkar a comfortable way of both getting to his 200th Test and saying farewell at home.

Think of the enormity of this: the Future Tours Programme has been disrupted, the financial standing of the South African board compromised, a marquee contest between the first- and third-placed teams in Test cricket put at risk or, at best, abbreviated, just to make sure that Tendulkar can retire at the time and place that suits him best. The BCCI might well be settling other scores with CSA, and Tendulkar may not have asked for the West Indian tour, but what are the chances it would have materialised if he had retired earlier or, alternately, committed himself to touring South Africa? Zero.

This destructively delayed retirement and its fall-out isn't Tendulkar's fault alone. He is such an extraordinary cricketer, and we are such a needy nation that as a cricketing public we have created a force field that has skewed the game's priorities and conflated Tendulkar's well-being with the good of cricket. No individual, or so the cliché used to go, is bigger than the game. There's an exception to that rule now: for the duration of the series against West Indies, till the end of Tendulkar's 200th Test, Test cricket will principally be an occasion for rehearsing Tendulkar's greatness.

Mukul Kesavan is a writer based in New Delhi

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • vivek_h on October 19, 2013, 10:51 GMT

    i do not agree with the article at all. How can Tendulkar be blamed if the problem is in the system. As an individual he felt that his body,mind and soul were in sync with the game so he carried on. But in spite of what Tendulkar wants, the final decision is still in the hands of selectors. Tendulkar can deide about his retirement but he can not decide about his selection. If the administration has made Tendulkar bigger than the game, then it is their problem and weakness. Let us not blame a particular individual for the inefficiency of the system. Tomorrow some other player would be there instead of Tendulkar and we will again blame that player. Remove the root cause where in no player is allowed to be bigger than the game. let there be a system where selection is based on the good long-term sustainable performance. So it is better to clean up our own act and make a transparent system rather than leaving it on to the individuals.

  • sgma on October 19, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    Cant wait to see the last of him. Good (and overdue) riddance

  • manoj09 on October 19, 2013, 6:11 GMT

    Why is it that sportsmen are expected to retire on a high and are criticized when they don't. In other professions, people are not expected because they reached a particular milestone in life. Mukul - if you win the highest award in sports journalism or indeed the Pulitzer prize, will you retire from journalism right after that? Why not, because that would be the highest point in your career right? Or Maybe having tasted that success, you might try and win another one or two awards for a few years. Did the Lara's and Gavaskar's of this world because they were in the form of their lives? Or did they retire because they felt they don't have it in them (due to age, fitness, family etc) to continue the rigors of an international cricket career? Do you know what your "best by" date is? Does any human know their own "best by" date is? Were people like you right when they said he was past his "best by" date 5 years ago? You don't go by when others feel you should retire. Why should sportsmen

  • dummy4fb on October 18, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    Kesavan's articles have not lost their valance, they are still only about perfunctory investigation of unscientific perforation pattern on Tendulkar's new pair of shoes. LoL! No surprise he has less readership than Andy Zaltman.

  • KetanA on October 18, 2013, 13:39 GMT

    No one can have second opinion that Tendulkar was not upto his own standards in last two years but the article I guess is written just to prove single point that tendulkar stretched his career and in doing so the author has given examples of SR Waugh, Ponting and Dravid. Well, as far as i remember SR Waugh was on the brink of losing his place in the team some 3-4 years before his eventual retirement even Dravid had horrific year or two before England tour (and NZ tour before that) and his England performance was not kind of exception to his overall form before and after that and same case was with Ponting who had outstanding India series but failed miserably before and after that. May be Tendulkar was looking for such series to move away from the game but unfortunately when it never came he realized it's too late he announced his retirement.

  • strokemaker11 on October 18, 2013, 11:38 GMT

    Agreed Tendulkar is a great player but he has past his expiry date. Indian selectors are not bold as Australian selectors. Atleast selectors did a good job in giving him a strong message which forced him to retire from one-day cricket atleat. He is a great cricketer but is not a match-winner. He can never play match winning innings like Dhoni in ODI nor Test innings like VVS that can win matches.

  • jay57870 on October 18, 2013, 0:03 GMT

    Kesavan's arguments are dubious at best & disingenuous at worst! He's a blind follower of Ian Chappell's half-baked theory of "Use-by" dates. Mukul's spin: "best-by" dates! As if humans are grocery items that must be consumed by an expiry date? Ian opened a Pandora's Box with his infamous "Mirror on the wall" dictum for Sachin to retire in 2007. Blatantly wrong! Like Ian, Mukul uses illusory rear-view mirrors with distorted 20/20 hindsight: "These two years have damaged Tendulkar, the Indian team and cricket as an international game"! Blatantly wrong! Check it out: India's in the top 3 ICC rankings in all formats! The Little Master stands tall as a legend! Cricket's alive & kicking! Then Mukul invokes Enoch Powell's name to equate "politics" with "cricket" & drags Tendulkar's name for dubious effect. Blatantly wrong! Ever read Powell's infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech? The Times called it "an evil speech"! A castaway politician Mukul's hero? Who'd have thunk it, Mukul?

  • itsthewayuplay on October 17, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    A nicely written article against the current tide of Tendulkar fever that is sweeping India following his announcement. Whilst over the last few years of his career, Tendulkar has been unrecognisable from the player at the top of his game, what about Dravid? Perhaps without the flair of Tendulkar or Lara but no less a player as a number 3. Dravid scored 7 centuries in the last 7 months before he retired.

  • TRAM on October 17, 2013, 15:05 GMT

    Blame the unprofessional BCCI selectors. Common people may treat players as super stars. But for the selectors the player should be just another player. But then it was never ever like that with Indian selectors. Even today the stardom with which current players like Yuvraj, Kholi etc are addressed (by India commentators) is total unprofessional. I assume thats how the BCCI selectors would be as well. We had hell difficulty dropping Sehwag, Gambhir, Zaheer & Harbajan, didn't we? As long as a player is treated as star (by BCCI administrators) this problem will continue. But then why cant the player himself quit? Thats where I think SRT is surrounded by his "worshipers" who ill-advise him completely in to wrong decisions. This is just a possibility and guess only.

  • orangtan on October 17, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    Well said Mukul, I feel Sachin has been a pawn in the hands of the BCCI who know that he is still a crowd-puller among India's cricket crazed but not necessarily knowledgeable fans. He is surrounded by various people who want to get a piece of the action, who would never declare that the emperor's clothes are missing. If he had retired a couple of years ago, his average would have been in the rarefied area of the high 50s, now he is one of many who have averages in the low 50s.