Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[keep-it-cool]

http://epaper.asianage.com/ASIAN/AAGE/2009/11/15/ArticleHtmls/15_11_2009_011_002.shtml?Mode=1

THE GREATEST... ...COULD HAVE BEEN GREATER

I have no doubts whatsoever about his performances. His record over 20 years is impeccable. I feel that since I know his ability as a cricketer I can say that for all his wonderful talent and his fantastic ability, Sachin Tendulkar is an under-achiever. When I bowled to him 20 years ago I knew at once here was a cricketer of extraordinary ability, and he was only 16 years old then. In modern day cricket, according to me, no one can be compared to Tendulkar ­ not Viv Richards, not Ricky Ponting, not Brian Lara. I can only say that, sadly, Sachin has given an opportunity for people to compare oth ers to him. There has been no greater breaker of records, no bigger ambassador for India and for the game. For over 20 years he has been a champion, He has kept his mouth shut and shown what his bat is capable of. The cherry on the cake is that there have been no controversies surrounding him. His behaviour is impeccable. I know he broke every imaginable record. I am aware people will criticise me for saying this on such a happy occasion. He made records, but he is not a ruthless cricketer. In fact, he started as a destroyer but somewhere along the way he became a record breaker.

To my mind there are only a few ODI innings in which he played to his full potential. I remember a 138 against Sri Lanka (at Colombo, Compaq Cup final, September 2009) and the175 he made in Hyderabad last fortnight. There are a few other innings that come to mind, but I can confidently assert that, for a major part of his career, Tendulkar has played well below his potential.

Sunil Gavaskar had the ability and the patience to work a bowler till he was tired and then kill him. Sachin had the talent to kill a bowler in his first over. To my mind, Sachin played like Gavaskar. Taking in the totality of his cricket, Sachin had greater talent than what he performed.

Records he would have made anyway. His approach has been ideal to the passing of landmarks, to the setting of new peaks. I must confess that I felt bad about his 194 on the day he was left stranded when the captain (Dravid) declared the Indian innings. But I was not sad that he did not make his double hundred. You will know what I mean if you replay the innings on video.

What the cricketer in me says is that I would be happy had he made 500 to 1,000 runs less in his career provided he had been ruthless in his approach.
When I say all this I mean it as a compliment to his talent and a criticism of his under achievement. I firmly believe that for a batsman of Sachin's talent, he should have made 10 Test double hundreds, a 300 and at least one 400.

In the same breath, I would say that I would ideally have liked to see him go from 30 to 50 in three overs and to go from 50 to 80 on any pitch, against any bowling in 5 overs. He may use up another 5 overs to get to 95 and then safely get his century. Here is a man who can hit sixes at ease than anyone else in world cricket but after 50, he usually takes 5 overs to get to 55.

I have not seen Don Bradman bat. But I have seen Viv Richards and Sunil Gavaskar. Sachin is more talented than the two of them. He is a batsman capable of batting on 300 after a day's play in a Test. Today's climate and real feel are such you have to score that quickly to make big scores and kill the opposing bowling. I know Sachin could have done it. In my judgment, has had under performed to his ability in the last 12 years.

I know it's easy to say he should win a World Cup for India off his own bat. But this is not in his control, Winning a World Cup is about teamwork. What I want to see from Sachin in the rest of his career is to bat as he did in Hyderabad where he accelerated every time he lost a batting partner. That's his real ability.

I enjoyed it immensely when Sachin said this was the very best innings in his life. This is what he is capable of. The 140-ball hundreds are for Rahul Dravid and the like. I wish that to do justice to his ability he would sit with the likes of Richards, people with a ruthless approach ­ not with Geoffrey Boycott, who incidentally also broke all kinds of records. I remember Sharjah (ODIs in 1998), Sydney double hundred (in 2004), Perth hundred (1992). Sorry to say, I cannot say the same of his last 15 international hundreds. I was very hurt when Ponting said recently that Sachin makes runs. I think the Australian captain dismissed him as an accumulator of runs, a maker of records.

The world bowlers are scared of a batsman like Virender Sehwag today.
But they should always have been scared of Sachin. I know for a fact that he can hit the very same ball from the very same spot either to the leg side or the off side for four and he can do so either off the front foot or the back foot. Knowing very clearly that he has more ability and talent than anyone else, he should have destroyed bowlers.

Name 10 top international sportsmen who started shining when very young and you will see they would have suffered burnout by the time they were 30 ­ for example, Boris Becker, Nadia Comaneci. I admire Sachin's discipline and the passion he has for his sport even now at 36. Hats off to him. I know a lot of sportsmen work very hard on their game. Take Dravid as the prime example. But Sachin did not have to work hard. The only other cricketer I could think of with so much talent was L. Sivaramakrishnan. And look how he wasted it. Sachin did not have to work that hard on his game. What I would like to see in the remainder of his career is that he should dominate the bowling and make runs as he did in the Hyderabad ODI. I would like to see him finish his career as a destroyer of bowlers, as a ruthless cricketer who helped his team dominate the sport.

[dextrous]

I think this is most honest assessment about Sachin that has been made in the last two weeks. Thank you, Kapil. By the writing style, I can tell he wrote most of it too.

[dlee1]

it might be an honest assesment of sachin but one gets the feeling that he in this article has made comparisons therby showing some other players in poor light.

[keep-it-cool]

well if sachin were to play the way kapil wants him to, most players would appear in poor light in comparison to him. nothing wrong in that.

[WicketView]

What he had the capability to do, very few other players in many decades could do. But what he has done, can be compared by many others. That is what Kapil is saying, and I don't think it is far off. As for showing others in poor light, I don't think comparing a player to an ideal that comes so rarely is showing someone else in poor light.

On one account though, I feel differently. Brian Lara.

[keep-it-cool]

This is greatbong's post about Kapil's take. There is some element of truth in both articles.

http://greatbong.net/2009/11/18/sachin-the-underperformer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+greatbong%2FkMBB+%28Random+Thoughts+of+a+Demented+Mind%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[dextrous]

good post..but again, marked by cheap swipe at kapil for reasons i have never fully understood.

"Sachin fans will dismiss it off-hand with a smirk  reminding people of  the irony inherent in Kapil Dev criticizing someone else of playing for records when he himself dragged his career to beat a rather irrelevant record, in the process depriving the country of the best years of Srinath’s career "

Kapil in 92 was still India's best bet in both South Africa and Australia. After that India was basically playing 3 spinners + Kapil + Monoj where neither were bowling more than 10-15 overs a test match. Those were def. not srinath's best years--in fact he was bowling a lot of rubbish back then and didn't mature for another couple of years

[WicketView]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.


Where I think GB gets it wrong is that Kapil is not criticizing Tendulkar of playing for records for selfish reasons. When I read Kapil's piece at no point do I get the feeling that he is accusing Tendulkar of doing this for personal gain. The closest he comes is in referring to the 194, where he has become completely ambiguous. I get the feeling he is saying he does not care for such double hundreds, rather than accusing SRT of something ... but I admit it is subject to interpretation. He is stating that a record breaker or accumulator is much less in his eyes than a destroyer, their contributions to results notwithstanding.

I think there are two parts to that. As GB points out, (and has been alluded to by SMG many times), not sacrificing style for the team is selfish, but by a certain set of values, it is how the game is played rather than the results which is important. But the second part is that given Sachin's talent, he could perhaps been more of a destroyer (a few steps up)  without sacrificing his contribution to the team. It is obviously hard to be confident about this, as no one knows for sure. Quite a few times he has  had problems when he went into a shell, (do you recall South Africa and Harris). So perhaps a different attitude would have him do better. I do feel Kapil has it right.

[keep-it-cool]

The sense I got is that Kapil wanted SRT to play more "taking the game away from the opposition" kind of innings than he has actually played. His reference to Hyderabad, Perth (I am confused how Sydney figures - given that the way SRT played there is exactly how Kapil does not want him to play) and his earlier centuries point to this. He acknowledges the higher risk ("even if he had 500-1000 runs less") but feels it is a reasonable sacrifice.

On the 194*, I see Kapil clearly admonishing SRT for playing the way he did - the sentence "I am happy he did not get his double century ..anyone who looks at the video will know why" clearly points to the same.

[WicketView]

The sense I got is that Kapil wanted SRT to play more "taking the game away from the opposition" kind of innings than he has actually played. His reference to Hyderabad, Perth (I am confused how Sydney figures - given that the way SRT played there is exactly how Kapil does not want him to play) and his earlier centuries point to this. He acknowledges the higher risk ("even if he had 500-1000 runs less") but feels it is a reasonable sacrifice.

Yes, not sure why Sydney comes in the same sentence (I thought Sydney was remarkable for a completely different reason).
The point I am making is he does not accuse Sachin of not making this 'reasonable sacrifice' for personal gains, he may fully appreciate that Sachin played the way he did for the team and not himself, but feels that it is the wrong strategy (which is  something that GB spends some time demolishing).

On the 194*, I see Kapil clearly admonishing SRT for playing the way he did - the sentence "I am happy he did not get his double century ..anyone who looks at the video will know why" clearly points to the same.

admonishing yes ... like the rest of his career.

[keep-it-cool]

The sense I got is that Kapil wanted SRT to play more "taking the game away from the opposition" kind of innings than he has actually played. His reference to Hyderabad, Perth (I am confused how Sydney figures - given that the way SRT played there is exactly how Kapil does not want him to play) and his earlier centuries point to this. He acknowledges the higher risk ("even if he had 500-1000 runs less") but feels it is a reasonable sacrifice.

Yes, not sure why Sydney comes in the same sentence (I thought Sydney was remarkable for a completely different reason).
The point I am making is he does not accuse Sachin of not making this 'reasonable sacrifice' for personal gains, he may fully appreciate that Sachin played the way he did for the team and not himself, but feels that it is the wrong strategy (which is  something that GB spends some time demolishing).

I agree he does not appear to be questioning Sachin's motive for not making this 'reasonable sacrifice' ...just stating that he wishes Sachin had done it more often.

On the 194*, I see Kapil clearly admonishing SRT for playing the way he did - the sentence "I am happy he did not get his double century ..anyone who looks at the video will know why" clearly points to the same.

admonishing yes ... like the rest of his career.

This, I dont think was in the same vein. Here he seems to be alluding to some selfishness (at worst) or inability on SRT's part. At least that is the way it came across to me - the way it was written. Of course, given that Kapil is not the best writer around, it is possible he may not have meant it in that manner.

[dextrous]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

[dhruvdeepak]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

yeah paaji didnt want to bowl the last over in the hero cup semi, the match before. i am glad he didnt, i wont say why but the video tells all. the then greatest wicket taker of all time vehemently shaking his head at azza, and a little 20 year old saying "aila okay, i will only bowl"

[dhruvdeepak]

fk all these idiots who want to fine tune sachin's game for him . for pete's sake. dont presume to tell him how his body and mind work, or should work.

[kban1]

Here is what is wrong with GB's rebuttal of Kapil's points about SRT:

GB uses Kapil's style of play to rebut Kapil's argument about scoring 20 runs per 3 over duration.

What GB's argument does is take Kapil's example too literally and then proceeds to dissect it --the perfect example for missing the forest for the trees.  Wrong approach to prove a point, IMO

The second fallacy of the argument is to equate Kapil's abilities with the bat that of SRT.  They are not the same, even Kapil acknowledges that.

The third fallacy, which goes hand in hand with the 2nd, is equating Kapil's temperament with that of SRT. Again, they are not the same. While both have the aggressive spirit, Kapil's was care free to the extent of dangerous to his own cause and his team's, something which is miles away from SRT's temperament and approach to the game.

GB's argument finally compounds the issue by clutching at the last straw --in order to provide legitimacy to the argument involving Kapil, he brings in the example of Viv Richards to back his assertions. Where this argument falls flat is the fact that he uses Viv's decline to substantiate his argument completely ignoring --

a) Viv's game was built on his eye and not technique or balance while SRT's game is more balanced, which means his decline would be less precipitous than someone like Viv.

b) Viv Richards averaged 58.98 runs per innings in his prime (yes that is cumulative career average till the age of 31) after which his eyesight started deteriorating gradually and imperceptibly till the drop in his form became pronounced  and his career average dipped all the way down to 50 (he did play way too long --till he was 39+).

For GB to say that had SRT played in Viv's style, he would have faced the same fate as Viv is just wrong analysis.

SRT's game is not based on pure eyesight, and GB's use of the deteriorating phase of Viv's career (references to Somerset not renewing an over the hill Viv'scontract included) to draw an inference about SRT's fate had he also been attacking is clutching at straws because it ignores the fact that Viv in his prime was phenomenally successful in his attacking mode.

This is of particular importance because GB attributes SRT's change in batting style to his advance realization of slowing reflexes. And he attributes such change towards the latter part of the 1990's -- when SRT was all of 27/28/29 years old!!!!

GB claims --indirectly --that SRT not made that change at the age of 27-29, he would have ended up as Viv ended up at the age of 37 -39, completely ignoring that Viv reigned supreme with his original style till he was almost 31.

I think Kapil's original argument is true in spirit, if overstated in hyperbole.

And GB's rebuttal of a hyperbole has resulted in an argument, which is unsustainable.

[Cernunnos]

Well said kban1, agree with your rebuttal.

Kapil doesn't prescribe the same style of batting for everyone. Since he saw up close the rare talent in SRT to destroy attacks, he felt he should have pursued that. Instead he turned out to be an accumulator.

I agree with Kapil. The destroyers I can think of are Viv, Gilly, Jayasuriya and Sehwag. Almost everytime they scored an ODI century, their teams won. While in Sachin's case it is 70%. While winning is not entirely in a batsman's hands, it is hard to deny that there is an element of "filling the boots" in SRT's approach.

[inoc]

Kban

Just a few thoughts on your post.

Here is what is wrong with GB's rebuttal of Kapil's points about SRT:

GB uses Kapil's style of play to rebut Kapil's argument about scoring 20 runs per 3 over duration.

What GB's argument does is take Kapil's example too literally and then proceeds to dissect it --the perfect example for missing the forest for the trees.  Wrong approach to prove a point, IMO


The second fallacy of the argument is to equate Kapil's abilities with the bat that of SRT.  They are not the same, even Kapil acknowledges that.

The third fallacy, which goes hand in hand with the 2nd, is equating Kapil's temperament with that of SRT. Again, they are not the same. While both have the aggressive spirit, Kapil's was care free to the extent of dangerous to his own cause and his team's, something which is miles away from SRT's temperament and approach to the game.

True in some respects but are we not taking his example too literally and forgetting what he is actually implying.

It may be anybody, not Kapil alone, who fits that bill.

GB's argument finally compounds the issue by clutching at the last straw --in order to provide legitimacy to the argument involving Kapil, he brings in the example of Viv Richards to back his assertions. Where this argument falls flat is the fact that he uses Viv's decline to substantiate his argument completely ignoring --

a) Viv's game was built on his eye and not technique or balance while SRT's game is more balanced, which means his decline would be less precipitous than someone like Viv.

From the very outset?

Or was it SRTs deliberate attempt to make his game a more balanced one.

Both of them chose what they were comfortable with, I cannot personally blame either.
 
Whether you choose to mug two weeks before the exams or study the whole year is your personal choice, depends on individual characteristics.

where a IVAR or KD may be very different from SRT. Where is the need to dump your personal belief on another.

NB thats what KD is trying....

b) Viv Richards averaged 58.98 runs per innings in his prime (yes that is cumulative career average till the age of 31) after which his eyesight started deteriorating gradually and imperceptibly till the drop in his form became pronounced  and his career average dipped all the way down to 50 (he did play way too long --till he was 39+).

He actually progressively averaged 62 till he was 29, two bad years at 39 average, dropped his progressive average to 58 as you have mentioned. Maybe the decline actually started two years ago at 29, if your numbers are to be believed.

For GB to say that had SRT played in Viv's style, he would have faced the same fate as Viv is just wrong analysis.

Of course it would be wrong analysis, but a justified analogy, IMO.

SRT's game is not based on pure eyesight, and GB's use of the deteriorating phase of Viv's career (references to Somerset not renewing an over the hill Viv'scontract included) to draw an inference about SRT's fate had he also been attacking is clutching at straws because it ignores the fact that Viv in his prime was phenomenally successful in his attacking mode.

That is essentially the crux of the argument.
SRT could have (of course this is conjecture, as is the whole argument) carried on with his bombastic annihilation of opponents.
He chose not to.
He chose to add technique as a back up to his incredible ability/talent.
Could he have been as successful if he hadn't..  – is anyone’s  guess.
One can argue that he was clever enough to curb his wildness to produce the culture in his play – a fact that IVAR did not.
As an example – not proof – here are IVAR/SRT averages since age 29.

Overall ones since their 29th birthdays.

80 118  4882 44.78
67 113  4908  48.59

year on year are available as well.

This is of particular importance because GB attributes SRT's change in batting style to his advance realization of slowing reflexes. And he attributes such change towards the latter part of the 1990's -- when SRT was all of 27/28/29 years old!!!!

Please note according to your progressive average that you quoted the IVAR deterioration started at the age of 29.
As I said according to your criteria....

GB claims --indirectly --that SRT not made that change at the age of 27-29, he would have ended up as Viv ended up at the age of 37 -39, completely ignoring that Viv reigned supreme with his original style till he was almost 31.

This is pure conjecture, as you will agree Kban.

And GB's rebuttal of a hyperbole has resulted in an argument, which is unsustainable.

It is a simple case of trying to UNDERSTAND.

[RicePlateReddy]

Conjecture: If Sachin approached the game like Richards did. I think he would have ended up more or less at the same place, statistically. He might have won some games for us in spectacular fashion but this approach wouldn't have prevented our losses and inconsistency through his time. So net-net, India's win-loss ratio would have remained  around the same. Such hypothetically resplendent innings would have been written about with even more hyperbole and he would have been made more of an untouchable god, if you can imagine that.

Perhaps Kapil is just reflecting that - he would have been even "greater".

I think the reason Sachin did not go down that path is solely due to pressure. Already, the pressure on him - the 'perfect Indian' - is unreal and unfair. Imagine what the public expectation on him would have been if he consistenly took on the Sehwag mindset, and got away performing at a better rate than Sehwag. That Sachin did not do so is one of emotional self-preservation, than one of selfishness. Sure he would have been greater, but at what cost?

[WicketView]

...

This, I dont think was in the same vein. Here he seems to be alluding to some selfishness (at worst) or inability on SRT's part. At least that is the way it came across to me - the way it was written. Of course, given that Kapil is not the best writer around, it is possible he may not have meant it in that manner.

I agree that it is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. This is why I stated that this is where he comes closest to accusing Sachin.

[WicketView]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

Sorry, I will have to disagree with that.  Of course, in Australia he was still doing well.  But in the home series, no. As you point out this was when Raju and Chauhan were getting all the wickets after the batting put up large totals ... so it does not show in the results. In better form, Kapil would hardly have taken too many more and certainly could not improve the final results. But that just hides his form. If you looked at his bowling,he had lost his touch.  One of the greatest things about Kapil was the control he had ... he seemed to have lost it too. So I do believe he would have retired had the record not been in sight. As I said before, it was not just him, but (at least almost) everyone else who wanted an Indian to get that record ... particularly when the results were not different.

[keep-it-cool]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

Sorry, I will have to disagree with that.  Of course, in Australia he was still doing well.  But in the home series, no. As you point out this was when Raju and Chauhan were getting all the wickets after the batting put up large totals ... so it does not show in the results. In better form, Kapil would hardly have taken too many more and certainly could not improve the final results. But that just hides his form. If you looked at his bowling,he had lost his touch.  One of the greatest things about Kapil was the control he had ... he seemed to have lost it too. So I do believe he would have retired had the record not been in sight. As I said before, it was not just him, but (at least almost) everyone else who wanted an Indian to get that record ... particularly when the results were not different.

But Kapil's numbers in the home series were not all that bad.

1. v/s England – avg of 19, SR of 44
2. v/s Zim – avg of 44, SR of 102 (only one test match)
3. v/s SL – avg of 25, SR of 48

Srinath featured in almost all away test matches we played during that period. So, it is difficult to make a case that Kapil kept Srinath out. Now if we know of a third seamer (other than Prabhakar and Srinath) who could have outperformed what Kapil provided (bat + ball combined), then one can say that Kapil should have been dropped earlier.

[WicketView]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

Sorry, I will have to disagree with that.  Of course, in Australia he was still doing well.  But in the home series, no. As you point out this was when Raju and Chauhan were getting all the wickets after the batting put up large totals ... so it does not show in the results. In better form, Kapil would hardly have taken too many more and certainly could not improve the final results. But that just hides his form. If you looked at his bowling,he had lost his touch.  One of the greatest things about Kapil was the control he had ... he seemed to have lost it too. So I do believe he would have retired had the record not been in sight. As I said before, it was not just him, but (at least almost) everyone else who wanted an Indian to get that record ... particularly when the results were not different.

But Kapil's numbers in the home series were not all that bad.

1. v/s England – avg of 19, SR of 44
2. v/s Zim – avg of 44, SR of 102 (only one test match)
3. v/s SL – avg of 25, SR of 48

Not everything is captured by those numbers, and as I said his presence did not harm India in terms of concrete results. Did you also notice that when the spinners were running rout, Kapil was brought back to have a go at the tail? Did you notice that a Kapil, who had exceptional control over the ball throughout his career had lost that control?

Srinath featured in almost all away test matches we played during that period. So, it is difficult to make a case that Kapil kept Srinath out. Now if we know of a third seamer (other than Prabhakar and Srinath) who could have outperformed what Kapil provided (bat + ball combined), then one can say that Kapil should have been dropped earlier.

For someone who has been supporting the cause of testing new players with the logic that we will not know how good or bad they are if we don't try them,  this is a strange statement. Selection procedures were rather hard at that time ... new people were hardly given a chance (much less than the the potential today).  Ok, let me just spit out something that comes to my mind. What if I told you there was a player around that time who played a single test (actually bowled in a single inning) took three  wickets (no one took more) and was never called to bowl for India again?

Am I unhappy that Kapil or Kumble got those records perhaps at the expense of quicker victories? No, I am proud in that an Indian holds those records. On the other hand, I have to admit to myself that the record is not in the most natural scenario. It is similar to a batting team that bats on with the express purpose of getting a century for a player, without compromising the match result. It is done globally, but such a century perhaps has less value than a natural one.

[dextrous]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

Sorry, I will have to disagree with that.  Of course, in Australia he was still doing well.  But in the home series, no. As you point out this was when Raju and Chauhan were getting all the wickets after the batting put up large totals ... so it does not show in the results. In better form, Kapil would hardly have taken too many more and certainly could not improve the final results. But that just hides his form. If you looked at his bowling,he had lost his touch.  One of the greatest things about Kapil was the control he had ... he seemed to have lost it too. So I do believe he would have retired had the record not been in sight. As I said before, it was not just him, but (at least almost) everyone else who wanted an Indian to get that record ... particularly when the results were not different.

But Kapil's numbers in the home series were not all that bad.

1. v/s England – avg of 19, SR of 44
2. v/s Zim – avg of 44, SR of 102 (only one test match)
3. v/s SL – avg of 25, SR of 48

Not everything is captured by those numbers, and as I said his presence did not harm India in terms of concrete results. Did you also notice that when the spinners were running rout, Kapil was brought back to have a go at the tail? Did you notice that a Kapil, who had exceptional control over the ball throughout his career had lost that control?

No, he had not lost control at all. I'm really not sure where you're gathering that from. He'd lost pace but not control.

Azhar and Wadekar simply weren't interested in fast bowlers of any kind. Even Prabhakar, at the height of his career, was barely bowling. It was plain and simple strategy to put those pitches out for England, Zim, and SL, after what happend in SA and Australia earlier. Had India played in England, Kapil's record vis-a-vis Kumble would look quite different for those matches at that time.

[WicketView]

...

No, he had not lost control at all. I'm really not sure where you're gathering that from. He'd lost pace but not control.

Memory of watching those matches.

...

Azhar and Wadekar simply weren't interested in fast bowlers of any kind. Even Prabhakar, at the height of his career, was barely bowling. It was plain and simple strategy to put those pitches out for England, Zim, and SL, after what happend in SA and Australia earlier. Had India played in England, Kapil's record vis-a-vis Kumble would look quite different for those matches at that time.

[keep-it-cool]

Much as I am a fan of Kapil Dev, there is little doubt that his career was dragged on. Then again, it was not him alone who wanted it. It would not be terribly wrong to say that the entire nation (most people) wanted that record more than playing someone who might be a better bowler at that point. In some sense it was similar to Kumble taking ten wickets. I don't know (and actually don't think) if Kumble asked the other bowlers to bowl deliveries that would not buy them wickets. But everyone else wanted it as well, so they did.

This is one of those myths that have been repeated so many times that it begins to sound true. Kapil was still in prime shape and form (altho he'd obviously lost the pace) when India played in Australia in 91-92. In fact, his peformance was one of the few bright spots. In South Africa, again, he started off well, getting Cook out the first ball and followed it up with a fighting 100 at Port Elizabeth. After this, India played a handful of series at home, starting with England (3-0), Sri Lanka (3-0), Zimbabwe (3-0?). During these games, Kambli was breaking all sorts of records and so was Kumble, who was bowling in tandem with Raju and Chauhan. Kapil had little to no role to play with the ball or the bat (he wasn't even getting a chance), so it is difficult to say whether he was "dragging" his career. On foreign pitches, such as the one-off match with NZ, he was still bowling with a lot of guile. Even in India..the match Kumble took 6-12 in the Hero Cup, Kapil's initial spell de-railed the West Indies. He was as economical as ever in the one dayers.

Sorry, I will have to disagree with that.  Of course, in Australia he was still doing well.  But in the home series, no. As you point out this was when Raju and Chauhan were getting all the wickets after the batting put up large totals ... so it does not show in the results. In better form, Kapil would hardly have taken too many more and certainly could not improve the final results. But that just hides his form. If you looked at his bowling,he had lost his touch.  One of the greatest things about Kapil was the control he had ... he seemed to have lost it too. So I do believe he would have retired had the record not been in sight. As I said before, it was not just him, but (at least almost) everyone else who wanted an Indian to get that record ... particularly when the results were not different.

But Kapil's numbers in the home series were not all that bad.

1. v/s England – avg of 19, SR of 44
2. v/s Zim – avg of 44, SR of 102 (only one test match)
3. v/s SL – avg of 25, SR of 48

Not everything is captured by those numbers, and as I said his presence did not harm India in terms of concrete results. Did you also notice that when the spinners were running rout, Kapil was brought back to have a go at the tail? Did you notice that a Kapil, who had exceptional control over the ball throughout his career had lost that control?

I dont think he had lost control, based on what I remember. But even if you leave memories aside, that is why I posted both average and strike rate. It could have been easy to get a low average but even his strike rate was better than what he had over his career. Loss of control would have reflected somewhere. Simple fact of the matter is that pace bowlers were hardly needed - teams used to just fold up before the three pronged spin attack. In that context, picking a pace bowler who was also handy with the bat made a lot of sense.

Srinath featured in almost all away test matches we played during that period. So, it is difficult to make a case that Kapil kept Srinath out. Now if we know of a third seamer (other than Prabhakar and Srinath) who could have outperformed what Kapil provided (bat + ball combined), then one can say that Kapil should have been dropped earlier.

For someone who has been supporting the cause of testing new players with the logic that we will not know how good or bad they are if we don't try them,  this is a strange statement.

I dont think it is the same thing. It is not as if we had a situation where 2 or 3 or 4 bowlers would all go at the same time. The others were all set to play on for long. As such, it made no sense to try out people just for the heck of it. Where do I call for SRT to be replaced so that we can find a replacement for him?

Selection procedures were rather hard at that time ... new people were hardly given a chance (much less than the the potential today).  Ok, let me just spit out something that comes to my mind. What if I told you there was a player around that time who played a single test (actually bowled in a single inning) took three  wickets (no one took more) and was never called to bowl for India again?

You are probably talking about Subroto Banerjee. There was also the case of Vivek Razdan earlier, who took five wickets on his debut, if I remember right. I agree selection procedures were wierd. But it is not as if Kapil kept him out. If that were the case, he would have come back into the team post Kapil's retirement. Secondly, Kapil was also a very handy batsman - in fact, his presence allowed us to play five frontline bowlers. I doubt any of the new pacers would have been able to match that. Given that we had Manoj Prabhakar, I would still have been open to picking a pure bowler over Kapil, had there been any special talent on view. I just dont think anyone really set the stage on fire at that stage other than Srinath - who, as I showed, did not really miss out.

Am I unhappy that Kapil or Kumble got those records perhaps at the expense of quicker victories? No, I am proud in that an Indian holds those records. On the other hand, I have to admit to myself that the record is not in the most natural scenario. It is similar to a batting team that bats on with the express purpose of getting a century for a player, without compromising the match result. It is done globally, but such a century perhaps has less value than a natural one.

I dont care about those records nor does it give me any extra pride. However, I dont think we compromised on potential results to get those results - as you seem to agree as well. Nor did we have any obvious superior replacement (even if you forget Kapil's batting)

Even in the case of Kumble's record, the question is whether Srinath would have bowled wide off the crease to the last Pak batsman if we had to take that wicket with only 10 overs to go - I hope not.

[keep-it-cool]

An interview with Kapil on Tendulkar. This clears one thing up - he was referring to the Sydney century on the '91 tour and not the Sydney double hundred in 2004. Now it makes sense.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091115/jsp/sports/story_11743219.jsp

Puri: Back in 1989-90, on Sachin Tendulkar’s maiden tour as an India cricketer, one recalls Kapil Dev saying “Bachcha hai... Usko rahne do...”

Given a chance, Kapil would, even today, probably be as protective about Sachin. It’s just that he’s now 36 and not 16.

On Saturday, the eve of Sachin completing 20 years as an international cricketer, Kapil (the only India captain to have lifted the World Cup) spoke to The Telegraph about Little Master II.

The following are excerpts


Q When did you first see Sachin?

A At the CCI (in Mumbai), before he’d been picked for India... I recall Raj Singh Dungarpur asking me to bowl a few balls to ‘a highly gifted kid’... I couldn’t say no to Rajbhai and, so, obliged... I didn’t go flat out, aware that I was bowling to a teenager... Sachin, however, flicked one off his hips so beautifully that I couldn’t but stand and marvel... It was an extraordinary shot from one destined to become the world’s best. Of course, I didn’t know that then.

You’d already played for 11 years when Sachin got selected for India (tour to Pakistan in November-December 1989). What did you make of him on his debut series?

Look, you can’t make predictions when somebody is so young... Sachin was only 16 then and I don’t think he’d begun to even shave... At that age, children want to be with their parents and brothers and sisters, but this young boy was alone in an alien country... I would encourage him... When somebody so young is around, you do tend not to talk about a few things... I used to be conscious of Sachin’s age.

What have been your impressions of Sachin over the past 20 years?

I admire Sachin’s passion, his commitment... He has a sense of humour... However, I still don’t know much about his personality... I know Sunil Gavaskar’s, but not Sachin’s... A player of his stature, for example, should regularly be coming out with his views... Should be expressing his opinion... Sachin doesn’t... As a cricketer, he has changed his game... His innings of 175 in Hyderabad the other day showed the Sachin of old... One who would dominate... Over the years, I would’ve liked to see many more such innings... Or, like his knocks in Sharjah (April 1998)... Or, like his Test hundreds in Sydney and Perth on his first tour of Australia (1991-92)... I remember Sachin smashed me for a six in the 1990-91 Ranji final in Mumbai... What a shot that was! Sachin has broken all the records, but hasn’t kept up the pace he had till the 1990s... Given his talent, Sachin should’ve continued to be ruthless. Instead, in more recent years, he has allowed bowlers to dominate... I hope you’ve got the point I’m making.

Why did Sachin change his approach?

Perhaps, he came under pressure from the media... People have been comparing Sachin to (Brian) Lara and (Ricky) Ponting... I find that totally out of place... Sachin, as I see it, should only be compared to Sir Don (Bradman), not the Laras... When he plays his natural game, Sachin is above Lara and Ponting... (After a pause) Sachin has more ability than (Sir) Viv Richards had, but along the way, he chose to play like a Gavaskar!

Little Master I Gavaskar and Sachin... Who would you rate higher?

I’d say Sachin has more ability, but Gavaskar got more out of himself... Gavaskar would tire the bowlers and, then, help himself to big runs... Sachin has it in him to scare the bowlers from the beginning.

What’s the one stand out memory, featuring Sachin, from his first tour?

The way he smashed Abdul Qadir in one over during the exhibition match in Peshawar... Glimpses of a genius were there for all to see. He’d been mind-blowing in that innings of 53 not out.

Records apart, what is special about Sachin?

The way he has taken on the role of India’s greatest sporting ambassador... He has, among other things, inspired a generation and more to play cricket.

What can today’s cricketers learn from Sachin?

The seriousness with which he approaches the game... The manner in which he accepts poor decisions from umpires... He doesn’t react, doesn’t make a scene... No tantrums... Indeed, there’s much to learn for those who actually wish to learn from Sachin.

For all his greatness as a batsman, why did Sachin not succeed as a captain?

It’s not necessary that he had to succeed in that role, too... Having said that, sometimes, a captain has to come down to the level of his players... Surely, everybody can’t bat like Sachin, who is so focused on his game... Sachin, to my mind, is quite a ‘closed’ person, like a (Sir) Richard Hadlee... Sachin wants to bat and bat only, just like Hadlee would only want to bowl and bowl... A captain needs to be quite active with the media, but Sachin didn’t look at that aspect of captaincy.

Can we get another Sachin Tendulkar?

When Gavaskar retired (in 1987), we all wondered whether somebody of his class would ever be seen again... Well, within a couple of years, we got Sachin... So, let’s see...

The last one... You’re worried about losing a further Rs 200...

(Laughs) Yes, as I’ve told you, if Sachin plays till 2019, then I’ll have to send him Rs 200 more!