Century of Centuries...

Video Journalism is a tough tough job. You have to ask the stupidest questions in the most confident-looking manner. When the entire cricketing fraternity was desperately awaiting the most coveted landmark of 100 international centuries, the visual media (along with it's elder sibling, print media) was busy accumulating the fact and figures of how many centuries HE has scored in losing cause; or how many innings he was close to scoring a century and couldn't thus losing the task assigned to HIM; and so on. For past 15+ years, media had come to a saturation point of praising HIM and hence to create some thrilling atmosphere, it seems the media had taken that task on itself. And that thrill, they believe, can only be created by talking about stupid facts and the deadly stupidest of observations. And hence, it seems they had to take up the unhappy task of praising the man whom they have been not liked for the past few years for not providing them the fodder that is required to keep their business and TRP running.

Yesterday when SRT scored his most difficult century (in terms of the stupid pressure of expectation of magical number), I had thought it must have been a bad day for the media, as few days back they were all asking for his retirement and giving way to some deserving youngster. But I must admit, I was quite surprised (maybe pleasantly) to see them praising HIM. But as expected, there were a few stalwart journalists/reporters/newsreaders who had the last laugh. HE scored his century, unfortunately the slowest of all ODI centuries scored earlier, and more importantly India still managed to lose the match which they could have won when Bangladesh needed 33 of last 18 balls. The same media got a great weapon in their hand.
"Didn't India lose the match because of HIS slow batting?"
"Didn't HE succumb to the pressure of the Bangladesh team for desperately wanting the century?"
"Is personal milestone of one man hurting the entire team?"
"Now that he has scored the magical hundred, shouldn't he retire from the game?"
These were the few "highly-intellectual" questions asked by the "sarva-gyaani" media who knows cricket better than anyone in this small cricketing-world. And inspite of the so-called guest-experts were hailing HIM for the achievement and praising the dedication and determination of HIM, how could the media do the same and bore the people by giving stale information that has been imparted for last 15+ years?

I have been following SRT for the past 15+ years, especially since 1996 WC. I do not claim to know HIM in person or to be his biggest fan, or to be most knowledgeable cricket student. Neither have I played any first-class cricket. But I have followed the game with passion. I have attempted to study the game, especially post 1996 as I mentioned above. It is not just one man, but I have seen the other big names in cricket too. Brian Lara, Waugh brothers, Aravinda De'Silva, Sanath Jayasuriya, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam-Ul-Haq and many more. Each of these players are great in their own place; each have made their respective teams/countries proud. More importantly, each have played the game giving their heart and soul. So what makes SRT different from others? According to me, the most important distinguishing factor of SRT is HIS child-like innocent passion for the game. HE "lives" cricket. HE keeps coming back stronger after every set-back because HE is still student of the game. That is why time and again HE goes back to the drawing board, back to the basics, and tries to improve HIS already perfect skills. This factor alone makes HIS the most humble mega-star the country has ever seen. HE isn't just loved by the cricket-world and the country just for HIS achievements. HE is loved and respected because HE does what no one else would do in this era. HE is respected because HE does things the way only HE can do. HIS celebration of the 100th century was a typical SRT one. No jubiliation, no punching fists, no pointing to the world HIS finger. HE just removed the helmet, raised both hands in air, looked up towards the sky, shook hands with opposition players and moved on. Just for a second, imagine a Virat Kohli reaching this landmark.

Only till a day ago, the entire media was making news by saying that it has been too long since the last century and the landmark is weighing heavily on HIS mind and HE should make way for the youngsters. Now the same media is blaming HIM for scoring that century and in the process losing the match for India. No better example of two-faced sword. I am not in a mood to praise SRT and blindly join the millions who do that. Neither am I going to repeat all those words that millions of people have already known. Neither am I his spokesperson. But I am just a fan of the game and love the Indian team and would continue to love them even if they lose every single match in next many years (as long as they are putting up a brave fight and not going down without any effort). I am also not going to defend SRT from the media. But I would like to ask a few questions and answer a few.

1. Whenever SRT scores a century the team loses the match. I don't think if anyone can ask a more stupid question than this. Even in yesterday's match, 289 was a respectable total considering the fact that we had a relatively good bowling attack. We could have won the match with a acceptable margin had Irfan not bowled those loose deliveries in the 48th over and also Praveen not bowled that no-ball boundary and six later. It is understandable that the Bangladesh players were going to go for the big shots as they had 6 wickets left at that stage. A little sensible bowling was expected and the match would have been ours. Yes, HE played slow, but then I still won't blame HIM as it was us who wanted that 100 badly not HIM. HE just wanted to get that monkey off HIS back. Every time HE has scored a 100 in a losing cause, I hope these media-experts will bother or trouble themselves to pull out the statistics (which they love to throw on our face) and see the other players' performances. Out of those 25 centuries where India has lost the match, atleast in 90% of the matches the other 10 players have failed to build upon the foundation given. The sand-storm match, the most painful Chennai test against Pakistan (1999), the 175 against Australia in Hyderabad in 2008. Many such examples can be given. In the recently concluded WC-2011 HE scored 2 centuries, and that were at a good pace, against good teams. But we almost lost one against England and lost the other against South Africa.

2. He fails when the team needs HIM badly. I never knew cricket was a game of individuals. I was a fool to think its a team-game. Yes I have seen HIM fail at crucial occasions. But then give it a thought. Is it really the pressure of the game? I don't think so. Its the pressure of desperation to perform HIS best at the highest possible level. In HIS career (till now) Indian reached the WC final only twice, 2003 and 2011. On both occasions, HE scored 2 centuries each and helped India to reach the finals. Yes a century in finals would have been the masterpiece, especially in 2003 when we were chasing 360. But HE mistimed that one rising delivery of McGrath. HE was desperate to perform as HE was living HIS dream of playing in WC Final. Any person could have made that mistake. But we can't let HIM commit it because HE is our GOD. We have placed HIM there on that thorny throne without HIM asking for it. So we feel it is our birth-right to expect HIM to score as and when we want, not as and when HE can. It could have been HIS last chance at the WC, though luckily HE got another go last year. There too, we expected HIM to score a century, especially since the game was at Wankhede. But why can't we expect HIM to just perform and not expect a century every time HE plays? Is a century the only measuring tape for HIM? There have been many great batsmen from Australia/England. No one bothers to expect or criticize them. Adam Gilchrist is a loved-player in Australia. When he failed in the 2003 WC final, no one bother to criticize his attitude towards the game as they knew its just a game and a century can't be planned, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. I wonder, how long HE has to bear this insult. I would like HIM to retire only to avoid this insult.

3. He is selecting matches & disturbing the future players. Well, I strongly feel, he should have played the ODI series against West Indies. That was his best chance to score that 100th century after a series of "failures" (his highest score in England series was 91) and before travelling to Australia. Australia is the most gruelling tour for any batsman, especially from the sub-continent. Firstly the grounds are huge, very large in dimensions. Secondly, the pitches are pace-friendly, having good bounce and carry. Thirdly, our lower middle order is still new with the likes of Rohit and Virat and a few others to name of. It was only because it was Australia, I think Rahul Dravid thought of carrying his career further. He is a proud cricketer like SRT and he wanted to give it his best, for the last time. And after a successful individual tour of England, it was really no surprise to see him making himself available for the one last adventure. It is also the same reason why SRT too played the ODI series. HE strongly feels HE still has some cricket left in HIM, which is why HE is still playing. Yes HE is selecting matches. But has anyone bothered to see which matches/series HE is playing? HE didn't travel to West Indies. HE didn't play ODI in England due to his injury. HE didn't play ODIs against West Indies. But he has played the important tournaments. Australia has been the best team by far and HE chose to play against them. So it shows HE was ready for the pressure and test HIMself.

4. HE is blocking the place of youngster, especially in ODIs. Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli are no youngsters now. They all have got enough opportunities and have performed quite well. Manoj Tiwary has had to sit out, but there are couple of youngsters who are playing in the team and not performing. Why isn't anything said about them? Ravindra Jadeja hasn't been performing really well. Why can't Manoj Tiwary take his place? Is he going to be our regular opener if he gets a place in team? We already have Sehwag and Gambhir to open the innings in absence of SRT. So Tiwary is not going to be our regular opener atleast for next couple of years. So does that mean SRT is blocking Tiwary's place? Ajinkya Rahane was also considered for the opening slot, but again the same logic applies to him as well. When we have Sehwag and Gambhir, when would Rahane get a chance? Why was Robin Uthappa left out after he played good in Australia in 2008? Wasn't he a regular opener for his domestic team and touted as a fierce opener for national team? So whose place is SRT blocking? Even in tests, he is coming at no. 4. We had Dravid at no. 3 and Laxman at no. 5. Barring a few brilliant knocks, VVS hasn't been a raving success for the team, especially out of the sub-continent. He has always been gritty and worked as hard as anyone. But still he hasn't tasted regular success as much as Dravid or SRT did. So when he was failing in England and Australia, why wasn't the cry for his retirement as high as it was for SRT? We all know at the back of our minds that these 3 are indispensable and we are not going to get their replacements overnight. These players have toiled hard, dedicated their minds and lives to the game. They know how to tackle difficult situations, know how to build their innings and inspite being from the era of modern bang-bang cricket they know the value of putting their heads down in crisis and build their innings. Which young players have these qualities? It was SRT in his only 3 series in career who score a fighting determined century and pulled India out of a defeat. Which current youngster would show this determination? I haven't seen any, not even Kohli/Sharma/Raina/Tiwary. And I am talking about hostile foreign conditions, not flat Indian wickets.

5. Now that HE has scored his 100th century, HE should retire. Stupid expectation. Who are we to ask HIM to retire. Do we pay HIM money from our pocket to expect HIM to provide the desired results? It is completely a matter between HIM and the team/BCCI. No one else has the right to even utter the word retirement. Not even to any other player, not just SRT. If they are not performing it is the Selection Committee's duty to either select the player or ignore him. It is argued that "we pay to see the match, so the players should play good". Well my dear friends, the players don't play for you and me. They play for the team, the country as a whole. They have not come to your home inviting you for seeing the match or begged to you to see the match on TV. If you are not liking a particular player or the game, you have the remote in your hand. Change the channel and see some stupid saas-bahu serial or some reality show. Don't you fail at your job ever? Have you never got a piece of mind from your bosses for failing at your deadline or failing at work? You and me have nothing to do with the selection. All we can do, or rather should do, is to sit and enjoy the game, its thrill. I am not saying this about SRT, but for any player of any game, not just cricket. SRT plays for pride and passion towards the game. He is the best person to decide whether he should play or not. It is the Selection Committee's job to decide whether he should be picked for the tournament or not.

Now coming to the questions that I want to ask. Well I haven't missed any. I have just put them in the 5 points mentioned above. There are many more things to talk. But I am still not out of the pleasure zone after HE scored the 100th century. As of now I can only say "TO BE CONTINUED..." Hope you are bored enough to stop asking stupid questions. Hope you are bored enough to stop following the stupid two-faced media. Relax yaar... CHILL. Now that HE has scored that landmark, lets give him his space and I am damn sure he is going to play good again.

A legend retires...

"The Wall" has retired. I wish I could add the word "unexpectedly". The Wall was always strong, but off-late it looked like it would crumble. I still don't buy the argument that he should make way for the youngsters; his technique went surprisingly wrong after just one series against West Indies in home condition; his reflexes went seriously slow just 6 months after the England tour where he was the most successful batsman for India. But having said that, I have no doubt that he made the right choice, the right decision. Even if he would have had a successful Australia tour (which surprisingly he never had except that one match-winning hundred in Adelaide in 2003-04), I honestly think it was the right time to announce his retirement. He had nothing to prove to anyone. He has been the most successful no.3 batsman, this side of Sir Don, and certainly the best batsman in recent times in terms of technique, temperament and approach to the game. If some people think he should have retired after the England tour, I would put my argument saying that the "Tour Down Under" is one of the most difficult and grueling tour for any batsman from the sub-continent. And his presence would have certainly helped the Indian team. That it didn't help much, isn't too disappointing considering the fact that except for the one century by Virat Kohli, none of the batsmen looked assuring on this one tour (including the great Sachin).

Looking back on the last 16 years of Indian cricket, as much as Sachin's impact on the game, Indian cricket has been blessed with two batsmen who have remained in the shadow of Sachin, but still had their own way of making an impact on the game. At the opening slot, we have Virender Sehwag who would feast on the pacers, score at brisk rate and give the platform for the middle-order. If it wasn't Sehwag's batting, we wouldn't have won majority of the matches outside the sub-continent. Having said that, the team also needed someone who could keep himself calm and assured while Sehwag bludgeoned the bowlers. And we couldn't have found anyone better than Dravid himself. It was his cool-calm-composed way of batting which ensured that after the fall of first wicket (especially if it was Sehwag) we had someone who could stop the fall further, and build his innings and then take the game away slowly but steadily from the opposition. Even before Sehwag burst onto the international scene, we had a huge set of problems finding a proper opener. That demon would raise it's head very profoundly on foreign pitches. And it is this reason why Dravid was so much wanted when the team would require him to walk onto the pitch, many a times in the first few overs of the innings.

Indian cricket in the 1990s was always heavily dependent on Sachin Tendulkar. (It will again be, now that Dravid has retired and it would still take a lot of time for someone to step in those big shoes left by him.) And it really was a blessing to have Dravid who could absorb the initial shocks for the team and let Sachin & others walk-in to play freely. Sadly, Dravid always had to stay behind the scenes or get overshadowed by either Sehwag at the start of the innings, or Sachin-Laxman in the later stages of the innings. But he never complained and that's the beauty of this man. He always knew only one thing, to put head down and focus on the job and save the team; he did this successfully over 15 years. I am waiting to see any youngster showing this quality. There would be many "deserving" candidates/youngsters who are desperately waiting to make their mark on the game. They might be very good-compact in their technique and might be fearless enough to play some aggressive innings rather than putting their heads down and knitting an innings. But I haven't seen this abovementioned quality in them. We have a Virat Kohli who has one of the best techniques in modern army of youngsters waiting for their turns. We have a Rohit Sharma who, like Inzamam, has lot of time to play his shots and has great technique. We have a Cheteshwar Pujara who is as good as Dravid. But the question is, do they have that temperament, that approach, that grittiness, that determination to hand around for as long as needed? With the current bombarding of T20, batsmen are more interested in playing their shots, hit boundaries, than knitting-building their innings.

It is not because Dravid commands respect, that he shouldn't be asked to hang-up his boots. It is not because he was one of the best batsman who played the game, that he shouldn't have quit the game. It is because, one series failure is no reason to question his abilities, his commitments, his desire to represent the country. Just 6 months back, he was the best batsman on the England tour. Just 6 months back the country was busy praising his technique, his dedication to bring glory to the country/team in terms of cricket. Just 6 months back, he scored 4 back-to-back centuries when the entire team was struggling to put bat to the ball. Unless, his clone played thereafter, I see no big reason why his technique-reflexes deteriorated so much that he failed in Australia. Mind you, he has scored only 2 centuries against the Aussies, one that famous 180 in Kolkata (2001-02), and one in Adelaide (2003-04). He hasn't exactly failed against them, but never had a flair of success either. So his failure, hasn't been really a glaring point enough to ask for his retirement. As said earlier, only due to the importance of this tour he seems to have made himself available.

Unlike Sachin Tendulkar, I have not seen major changes or modifications in Dravid's technique or way of batting in test cricket over the years. Fortunately, he was never unfit enough to miss any test-series, and he didn't have to make any such changes either. Inspite of this, his batting was always life-infusing for the team. He may not have the glamour of Sachin-Sehwag or even Laxman-Ganguly in his batting. But it never restricted him. He had the best of the techniques and almost every shot in the book. That is the reason behind his success, behind his 13000 test runs (and 10000 ODI runs too). He never kept the book aside. Whatever was the situation, this attitude, this loyalty to the technique helped him and gave him success. Or else how do you expect a slow run-getter like him to score 10000 ODI runs in just 350+ matches?

With Dravid, sadly, the cricket-book has closed down, maybe forever. Yes, there are still two batsman who are great students of this copy-book type of cricket, made famous by people like Gavaskar, Boycott, etc. But Sachin and Laxman often keep this bookish way aside and play a different game, Sachin does it more often, he has written a new book himself (I mean new non-bookish strokes). Dravid was the last player who was always loyal to that type and class of cricket. Now all that remains is group of stylish players, stroke-makers, and a huge group of T20 players.

RSD, you would certainly be missed. Your contribution to the game, no matter how overshadowed it has been in the company of SRT/SCG/VVSL, will always be remembered and we would cherish those memorable performances for a long time. The scene of you punching the hand in the air after hitting the winning-runs at Adelaide (2003-04) will never be forgotten, for that sums up your contribution. Selfless, gritty and never-say-die attitude.

Thank you for those wonderful, calm and honestly dedicated 16 years you gave for the team and for the country. Hope we now see you in a better role, in administration of the game. You have so much more than playing game to offer.