Gavaskar's criticism unfair and unwarranted

Sunil Gavaskar and I share the same year of birth and it has been my pleasure to follow his career closely, from the time he was hitting double hundreds at school in the mid-sixties, to the time he last played for India in November, 1987. For me, he will always take pride of place among all Indian batsmen, despite Sachin Tendulkar's prodigious blend of talent, dedication and ethereal strokeplay. During his long and illustrious playing career, he was always interested in writing. Not many active cricketers have authored four books and written regular columns but Gavaskar handled the pen with almost the same felicity that he wielded the bat. His incisive comments and timely suggestions, complete with tongue-in-cheek humour, made his columns extremely readable. Thanks to his columns and his frequent TV appearances, he is one former cricketer who enjoys immense popularity even among the later generation of cricket followers.

During his playing career, Gavaskar too cribbed about various things ­ practice wickets, playing conditions, the itinerary, biased umpiring et al. Does that make him a whiner? No, one would like to think that his complaints were justified and legitimate.

Of late, however, I find that much of his criticism is rather strident and some of his comments difficult to digest. Last year, for example, in his syndicated column he expressed the view that Tendulkar, by having to drop out on the tour of Sri Lanka because of the leg injury he sustained in Zimbabwe, had missed out on three certain centuries in the Tests. He said that Tendulkar would have done so even with one good leg.

I had to read the sentence over and over again to convince myself that Gavaskar had indeed made such a statement. Now I am second to none in my admiration for Tendulkar but if he is the best batsman in the world ­ and he is ­ it should be remembered that Muthiah Muralitharan, for his part, is the best spin bowler in the world. Batsmen with two good legs have found it difficult to play Murali, who has raced to the 400- wicket mark in Tests in quicker time than anyone else in cricket history. It would have been difficult to play Murali with one good leg, let alone get hundreds, even for someone like Tendulkar. In any event, such casual remarks are not expected from someone with Gavaskar's standing in the game.

Constructive criticism is something that is always needed and Gavaskar, in his column has frequently, while complaining about certain unhealthy trends in the game, also given suitable suggestions towards removing these negative aspects. But criticising just for the sake of criticising is, again, not something that one would associate with Gavaskar, who heads various panels of both the BCCI and the ICC. His recent criticism of the England team on their recent tour of India is quite unwarranted.

Hammering them for the "boring cricket" they produced during the Test matches and calling them "the champion whiners of the world" is to present an ill-balanced picture. English cricket is generally not known for its flair or flamboyant approach. Staid professionalism and an almost cold, methodical approach has commonly been England's way of playing cricket. It is almost impossible for them to play like the West Indians or the Sri Lankans. This has been typical even of the strong England teams that have visited India ­ Jardine's side in 1933-34 or Greig's squad 43 years later.

The team that Nasser Hussain brought to India, bereft of some of their best players, was a fairly weak one, with large question marks over their batting and bowling. They were written off as no hopers and a clean 3-0 sweep for the Indians was predicted. Under the circumstances, one could hardly expect them to play dashing cricket with a slam-bang approach. The onus was on hot favourites India, enjoying many advantages ­ a formidable middle-order batting line-up including the best batsman in the world, a better than average bowling line-up, playing on designer home pitches ­ to go for the kill. If they could not, it was more a failure on the part of the home side rather than any boring cricket played by the visitors.

I, for one, would rather fault Tendulkar for succumbing to pressure tactics in being stumped off Giles, rather than blame the bowler or Hussain. It was much the same story in the one-dayers. Again, India were installed as clear favourites, even tipped to take the series by a tennis like score of 6-0. Instead, England showed commendable fighting spirit to come from 1-3 down to share the series. That England did not throw in the towel, even after defeat seemed round the corner in the last two games, and pipped India at the post was heartwarming. There was something very positive about the successive victories. One must applaud the visitors instead of throwing brickbats.

If Kris Srikkanth criticises cricket that is not enterprising or adventurous, it would be acceptable. The former Indian opener was one of the most swashbuckling batsmen of his time. But when Gavaskar hits out at boring cricket or negative tactics, it is not easy to digest. For all the runs and centuries he made as a supreme technician and craftsman, Gavaskar was not generally known for a flamboyant approach both as batsman or captain. In fact, there were times when he went into a stupor. His 36 not out in 60 overs against England in the inaugural World Cup in 1975 remains perhaps the most infamous innings in the competition. In 1981-82 as captain, he promptly shut up shop after winning the first Test of the series against England. On that occasion, India were in the favourites' circle, but adopting negative tactics ­ over-cautious batting, a defensive field, a tardy over rate which saw even slow bowlers like Ravi Shastri and Dilip Doshi took five minutes to send an over ­ Gavaskar made sure of winning the series. He showed the way as a batsman too, batting for over 708 minutes while compiling 172 at Bangalore. And during his playing career, Gavaskar too cribbed about various things ­ practice wickets, playing conditions, the itinerary, biased umpiring et al. Does that make him a whiner? No, one would like to think that his complaints were justified and legitimate.

Gavaskar still has much to contribute to the game ­ as a writer and commentator, as an administrator, as a promoter. One can only hope that his recent comments are just an aberration. Constructive criticism from someone of Gavaskar's standing will make everyone who matters in the game sit up and take notice. He should not indulge in petty criticism or nit picking. If he does, he will only be justifying the statement of England coach Duncan Fletcher who when asked for his reaction to Gavaskar's criticism is quoted to have said, "It's very important to realise that he's on the ICC panel and should have an unbiased opinion and secondly, it's very sad when a good wine goes sour."