The 100: Triumph of man over god

“Because god didn’t want the birth of another god,” somebody wrote, explaining the reason behind Don Bradman’s failure to finish with the average of 100. God-fearing cricket writers must have been happy had Sachin Tendulkar finished his career stranded on 99 centuries. That would have proved the omnipotence of god and the limit of human excellence. That is why I was ecstatic when Sachin completed his 100th century. For an atheist like me, March 16, 2012 was the day when it was proved that either god doesn’t exist or even if he does, he cannot restrict human excellence.

Geniuses transcend their era but they are products of their era. When Bradman stopped short of the magic average in 1948, man had invented telephone and television but still could not dream of setting foot on the moon. Now, when Tendulkar achieved the unimaginable mark of 100 international centuries, human beings are buying property on the moon and have gone as far as questioning the statement: “Nothing moves faster than light.” Clearly, the boundary of human effort and human knowledge has exceeded all imagination. While Bradman’s generation believed there was something unachievable, Tendulkar’s generation believes nothing is impossible. His 100th century has affirmed that belief.

While many will say: “Thanks for the memories” when the master hangs up his boots in near future, I’ll say: “Thanks for showing how far we can go and making us believe even that is not the end.” While many worship him as the god of cricket, I love him because he is human like me but always strives to be superhuman. Not just his batting, even his humility is superhuman. Otherwise what was the need to go for an optional practice session before a game against Bangladesh? He could have indoors. Detractors would say his recent off form, which has given rise to calls for retirement, kept him on his toes. But haven’t players with much less runs in their skipped practice even in off form? The real reason behind the Little Master practising hard is he never thinks he is bigger than the game, even though the media and many of his fans think so.

Yes, he has been frail sometimes. All human beings are. He has made errors of judgement, offering himself to criticism. We all do that. Definitely, he should have retired from ODIs after winning the World Cup; he made a mistake by not doing so. But what is a man without mistakes? A shirker, because whoever tries something, makes mistakes. Tendulkar has never stopped trying.

The most striking feature of Tendulkar’s career, apart from his batting, has been the lack of words spoken. In a country like ours, where actors speak more than they act, politicians speak more than they work, gurus speak more than they need to and journalists are interested more in what is said than what is done, Tendulkar has remained most prolific with the bat but least prolific with his mouth. It’s not that there haven’t been controversies around him. When he made his debut, senior cricketers were at war with the Board. Then there have been times when his seniors were fighting against each other. Even there was a time when some cricketers were deliberately underperforming under his captaincy. Later, some of his teammates were caught fixing. In the last decade, his captain and coach were involved in a duel. Being an iconic cricketer all the while, there was a lot to talk about had he wanted to talk, but he never did. That policy has not worked all the time. Had he been more vocal, his record as the India captain would have been much better, his protest earlier could have saved India from the Greg Chappell disaster. So I do not support his policy of letting his bat do the talking all the time. But even in that policy there is a lesson to learn: “All work and no talk doesn’t make Jack a dull boy. It only makes him a better worker.”

Therefore, I am not among those who are waiting for his autobiography. I think, like Mahatma Gandhi, his life is his message. Of course it would be nice to know about his experiments with truth, and falsehood, but even without that, don’t we understand what made him what he is today? And critics? They’ll always be critics. Somebody who isn’t criticised by anybody isn’t worth his salt. So Tendulkar need not worry about those who say he is not a big match player despite the man being the all-time highest scorer in the World Cups, with a match-defining 85 in the semi-final of the World Cup that India won. Neither should he care a damn about those who say he never won India a Test in spite of his Warne-washing century in Chennai in 1998, England-effacing hundred there in 2009. And those who say Tendulkar never saved a Test are anyway to be laughed at because his first international century (119 at Old Trafford) itself was a match-saving one, not to forget the 176 at Eden Gardens in 2002. Let’s not talk about the innumerable Tests and one-dayers when the other Indian batsmen made guest appearances at the crease, thinking only Tendulkar has to score.

Before I finish, here are some stats for those who can’t have enough of the genius as well as those who are tired of him:

Among his 51 Test centuries, 20 have come in a winning cause when he averages 66.59, 20 more in drawn Tests when he averages 66.12 and only 11 have come when India have lost when he averages 37.65.

Of his 49 ODI centuries, 33 have won India the match. He averages 56.65 there. The other 16, including his 100th international ton, could not win it for India.

Now, if somebody says Tendulkar never plays for the team or he is not a match-winner, should he be listened to?