Hyderabad: Now that Tendulkar has at long lost retired from Cricket, it is appropriate to assess his career and achievements objectively. It has to be acknowledged, that he is one of the all-time greats of cricket.
But it is debatable as to where exactly we should place him in that pantheon. To decide his precise rank it is desirable that we must analyse his performance, only in test matches, which is the only true indicator of batting skill and achievement.
For obvious reasons, performance in one-day-internationals does not have any significance and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
In order to assess his performance it is perhaps quite adequate to have a look, however briefly, at the relative achievements of only Tendulkar and Bradman, to whom the former is being frequently compared.
Bradman played only 70 test innings (i.e the total number of 80 innings minus the 10 innings when he was not out). He got 6996 runs with 29 centuries which means a rate of one century every 2.75 innings or the number of times he went in to bat.
Bradman’s 29 centuries include 12 double centuries, two of which were triple centuries and another 299 not out.
On the other hand in Tests as on March 9, 2013, Tendulkar had played an astronomical number of 290 innings (deducting the 33 times he was not out from the 323 innings he actually played). He scored15746 runs with just 51 centuries.
His rate of scoring centuries is a poor 6.33 i.e he scored a century only once in every 6.33 times he went in to bat.
Another significant criterion is the fact that despite having played 323 Test Innings as on March 9th, Tendulkar has not scored a single triple century in Test Cricket.
In addition, he has scored only 6 double centuries - half of what Bradman hit in 80 Tests. (To put it in the proper perspective, Bradman would have scored 116 centuries, had he played 290 innings like Tendulkar!)
Bradman's Test average, which is the ONLY true measure of batting achievement, is 99.94.
The next four highest averages in cricket – Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe, and Gilchrist - lie between 60 and 61.
Tendulkar has an average of only about 54. 29 (45.35 less than Bradman's as on March 9th, 2013). This has not increased to be taken note of at the time of retirement.
In addition there are seventeen batsmen with an average between 50 and 60.
Brian Lara holds the records for the highest score in Test cricket (400) and First class cricket (501).
This means that Tendulkar has obliterated all records in Test cricket except three, Bradman's test average of 99.94 and Lara's two records.
The gap between Bradman's average and the second best can never be bridged all long as Cricket is played on this planet.
These scores should enable us to see Tendulkar's career and achievements in the proper perspective.
Tendulkar's 74 in the first innings, in the final test in which he played is being interpreted differently by different groups.
All his fans and admirers (indeed there are millions) say that even in this knock, he has revealed his genius bringing into play all the brilliant strokes in his repertoire.
Tendulkar’s team mates, the Bombay film crowd, and the industrial barons are playing down the significance of him not having scored a century, saying that it in no way diminishes his stature as the ‘God of cricket’ particularly in the light of his monumental batting records.
Special gold coins with his picture engraved have been minted and special stamps issued by the Government. There is a call for national integration under his leadership, saying that at this crucial stage in the history of our country, he can prove to be the one unifying force.
Some eminent writers on cricket have pointed out that Tendulkar's contribution to Cricket in general and Indian cricket in particular cannot be measured merely in terms of statistics.
Without a single exception, the entire media, the press, all television channels - private as well as government-owned - have dwelt on the single theme: Tendulkar's relevance as a sports ambassador in India, not just for cricket alone.
Never in the annals of any sport, in any country, have so many people come together in one voice in singing the glory, achievements and contribution of a single sportsman in this manner.
It is a national tribute and homage, the likes of which this country had seen perhaps only once before - for Gandhi.
Tendukar should be justifiably regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time. But without downplaying his accomplishments he has to be placed definitely below the Don.
And as Greg Chappel wrote in the Hindu today, even for being placed in the second position, there are others who are of the same stature like Sobers, Pollock, Barry Richard, Vivian Richards, and Neil Harvey.
Old timers would add the names of Hobbs, Hammond, and Headley. They were all great in their own way in their era.
Lara would be regarded by many as being in the same league as Tendulkar.
Coming to the Bharat Ratna, there is absolutely no doubt that Tendulkar definitely deserves it, if only because he has brought immense joy bordering on ‘ecstasy’ to 1.2 billion people who love the game and adore him.
After all if a politician of no great contribution to society (as in the past) could have been honoured, why not Tendulkar, who has been a source of delight and inspiration to millions of people, in our country.
But it would have been more appropriate for the government to have declared Sportspersons eligible for that award long before the Tendulkar phenomenon. By the same token, Viswanathan Anand, our great world-class chess champion, should have also been given the title, though in the current series against Carlsen he has not been faring well.
Whereas cricket is played only in half-a-dozen countries, chess is played in almost every country in the world. And Anand has achieved a pre-eminent stature and brought great honour to the country several times.
Chess is also a great game requiring enormous intelligence, hard work, immense concentration, and dedication.
Excluding Anand, while recognising Tendulkar's contribution, is unjust and discriminatory.
So also excellence in certain other sports would have to be recognised even if they have not been elevated to the status of a religion as cricket.
V.S. Ravi is an avid reader of DeccanChronicle.com
