Sunil Gavaskar and I share the same year of birth and it has been mypleasure to follow his career closely, from the time he was hittingdouble hundreds at school in the mid-sixties, to the time he lastplayed for India in November, 1987. For me, he will always take prideof place among all Indian batsmen, despite Sachin Tendulkar’sprodigious blend of talent, dedication and ethereal strokeplay. Duringhis long and illustrious playing career, he was always interested inwriting. Not many active cricketers have authored four books andwritten regular columns but Gavaskar handled the pen with almost thesame felicity that he wielded the bat. His incisive comments andtimely suggestions, complete with tongue-in-cheek humour, made hiscolumns extremely readable. Thanks to his columns and his frequent TVappearances, he is one former cricketer who enjoys immense popularityeven among the later generation of cricket followers.
During his playing career, Gavaskar too cribbed about various things practice wickets, playing conditions, the itinerary, biased umpiringet al. Does that make him a whiner? No, one would like to think thathis complaints were justified and legitimate.
|
Of late, however, I find that much of his criticism is rather stridentand some of his comments difficult to digest. Last year, for example,in his syndicated column he expressed the view that Tendulkar, byhaving to drop out on the tour of Sri Lanka because of the leg injuryhe sustained in Zimbabwe, had missed out on three certain centuries inthe Tests. He said that Tendulkar would have done so even with onegood leg.I had to read the sentence over and over again to convince myself thatGavaskar had indeed made such a statement. Now I am second to none inmy admiration for Tendulkar but if he is the best batsman in the world and he is it should be remembered that Muthiah Muralitharan, forhis part, is the best spin bowler in the world. Batsmen with two goodlegs have found it difficult to play Murali, who has raced to the 400-wicket mark in Tests in quicker time than anyone else in crickethistory. It would have been difficult to play Murali with one goodleg, let alone get hundreds, even for someone like Tendulkar. In anyevent, such casual remarks are not expected from someone withGavaskar’s standing in the game.Constructive criticism is something that is always needed andGavaskar, in his column has frequently, while complaining aboutcertain unhealthy trends in the game, also given suitable suggestionstowards removing these negative aspects. But criticising just for thesake of criticising is, again, not something that one would associatewith Gavaskar, who heads various panels of both the BCCI and the ICC.His recent criticism of the England team on their recent tour of Indiais quite unwarranted.Hammering them for the “boring cricket” they produced during the Testmatches and calling them “the champion whiners of the world” is topresent an ill-balanced picture. English cricket is generally notknown for its flair or flamboyant approach. Staid professionalism andan almost cold, methodical approach has commonly been England’s way ofplaying cricket. It is almost impossible for them to play like theWest Indians or the Sri Lankans. This has been typical even of thestrong England teams that have visited India Jardine’s side in1933-34 or Greig’s squad 43 years later.The team that Nasser Hussain brought to India, bereft of some of theirbest players, was a fairly weak one, with large question marks overtheir batting and bowling. They were written off as no hopers and aclean 3-0 sweep for the Indians was predicted. Under thecircumstances, one could hardly expect them to play dashing cricketwith a slam-bang approach. The onus was on hot favourites India,enjoying many advantages a formidable middle-order batting line-upincluding the best batsman in the world, a better than average bowlingline-up, playing on designer home pitches to go for the kill. Ifthey could not, it was more a failure on the part of the home siderather than any boring cricket played by the visitors.I, for one, would rather fault Tendulkar for succumbing to pressuretactics in being stumped off Giles, rather than blame the bowler orHussain. It was much the same story in the one-dayers. Again, Indiawere installed as clear favourites, even tipped to take the series bya tennis like score of 6-0. Instead, England showed commendablefighting spirit to come from 1-3 down to share the series. ThatEngland did not throw in the towel, even after defeat seemed round thecorner in the last two games, and pipped India at the post was heartwarming. There was something very positive about the successivevictories. One must applaud the visitors instead of throwingbrickbats.If Kris Srikkanth criticises cricket that is not enterprising oradventurous, it would be acceptable. The former Indian opener was oneof the most swashbuckling batsmen of his time. But when Gavaskar hitsout at boring cricket or negative tactics, it is not easy to digest.For all the runs and centuries he made as a supreme technician andcraftsman, Gavaskar was not generally known for a flamboyant approachboth as batsman or captain. In fact, there were times when he wentinto a stupor. His 36 not out in 60 overs against England in theinaugural World Cup in 1975 remains perhaps the most infamous inningsin the competition. In 1981-82 as captain, he promptly shut up shopafter winning the first Test of the series against England. On thatoccasion, India were in the favourites’ circle, but adopting negativetactics over-cautious batting, a defensive field, a tardy over ratewhich saw even slow bowlers like Ravi Shastri and Dilip Doshi tookfive minutes to send an over Gavaskar made sure of winning theseries. He showed the way as a batsman too, batting for over 708minutes while compiling 172 at Bangalore. And during his playingcareer, Gavaskar too cribbed about various things practice wickets,playing conditions, the itinerary, biased umpiring et al. Does thatmake him a whiner? No, one would like to think that his complaintswere justified and legitimate.Gavaskar still has much to contribute to the game as a writer andcommentator, as an administrator, as a promoter. One can only hopethat his recent comments are just an aberration. Constructivecriticism from someone of Gavaskar’s standing will make everyone whomatters in the game sit up and take notice. He should not indulge inpetty criticism or nit picking. If he does, he will only be justifyingthe statement of England coach Duncan Fletcher who when asked for hisreaction to Gavaskar’s criticism is quoted to have said, “It’s veryimportant to realise that he’s on the ICC panel and should have anunbiased opinion and secondly, it’s very sad when a good wine goessour.”