Let's not make super heroes of our players and be dismissive of the opponents

I have always had the highest regard for Sunil Gavaskar. I followed his cricket career ever since he notched up hundreds and double hundreds in inter-school matches in the mid-sixties right till his dismissal for four in the World Cup semifinal in his home town in November 1987. As a batsman, he takes his place as among the world's greatest of all time. As a person, I have got along well with Gavaskar. And on the few occasions that we have spent fairly long sessions together, he has not come across as selfish, arrogant, selfcentred and other half a dozen such adjectives which are generally used to describe him. Again, I have not been let down even in Gavaskar's latest avatar as a TV commentator. His observations are shrewd and to the point, his analysis remarkably succinct and his nofrills comments, complete with a delicious touch of humour whenever needed, has made him a cricket connoisseur's dream.

I have thus more than one reason to feel let down by his latest column and more specifically by one sentence in it. Touching upon Sachin Tendulkar's injury, Gavaskar says: "He is good enough to score a century on one leg over there (in Sri Lanka)."

I have written lately about how we Indians, an overemotional bunch, always believe that our larger than life heroes can win almost all the time and almost against any opposition. There is this tendency to downplay the achievements of members of the opposing sides and talk only about the great players in the Indian ranks. We saw this tendency when the Wisden 100 was released last month. There was a huge outcry that even one innings by Sachin Tendulkar was not included when so many other great knocks by batting legends over the last century also did not find a place in the list.

As Indian cricket fans, we tend to be unreasonably optimistic at times. Remember the 1999 World Cup? On the eve of the competition, an opinion poll on this web site made India the heavy favourites. Thirty five percent of those polled (more than 10,000 respondents) were of the view that India would win the World Cup. Needless to say, the vast majority of them were Indians and given the sheer population of the country - and consequently the vast following for the game - it only exposed the fact that Indians, wherever in the world they may be, tend to be over emotional when it comes to cricketing matters.

And this goes for the media too, which puts unnecessary pressure on the team and some individual players. The 1999 World Cup was also the time when a national news magazine carried a lopsided cover story titled "11 reasons why India will win the World Cup." In a most ill balanced view, the magazine argued that India would win the World Cup because they had Tendulkar, because they had Ganguly and Dravid in support, because the wickets in England would seam and India had Srinath and Prasad, because they had the ten wicket man Kumble, because they had a lucky captain in Azharuddin, because opinion polls favoured the team and so on. A more dispassionate analysis would also have mentioned that Australia had the Waugh twins, McGrath and Warne, that South Africa had Pollock, Donald, Kallis and Klusener, that Pakistan had Akram, Anwar, Inzamam and Saqlain and so on. That would have put things in a proper, more balanced perspective.

Which brings me back to Gavaskar's statement. One of the many things I have admired him for is the fact that in print or through his comments on TV, he always presents things in a balanced manner. There is no touch of hyperbole, no frills and thrills. His copy and his commentary bear the same trademark as that of his batting. Which is why that one sentence saddens me.

There is no doubting Tendulkar's greatness. The facts and figures, the style and approach mark him out as a living legend. But even he would have to be fully fit to take on Murali, Vaas and company. A leg or a foot injury is serious enough to hinder a batsman, even someone as great as Tendulkar. To say that he is good enough to score a century on one leg against Sri Lanka is to overstretch things, to put it mildly. If Tendulkar is great, let us not forget that Murali too is a great bowler. Among numerous feats against his name, the most remarkable is the fact that he is the second quickest to take 300 wickets in Test cricket, next only to Dennis Lillee. A bowler like Murali who turns the ball prodigiously and loves tossing them up has to be played carefully. Batsmen with two good feet have found Murali a tricky customer to handle and to try and take him on with one leg is difficult, to say the least, even for someone of Tendulkar's special qualities. One need not be in awe of the opposition but one must always have healthy respect for them.

With Tendulkar's withdrawal, we shall never know whether he indeed could have scored a century on one leg in Sri Lanka. But that is hardly the point. The main thing is not to make super heroes of your own countrymen and at the same time be dismissive of the opposition.