Kartikeya Date writes in an otherwise good post (emphasis mine):
Comparing Gilchrist and Tendulkar is instructive, because they were different types of ODI opener. Gilchrist, in theory, did not bear the burden of shouldering his teams innings to the extent that Tendulkar did. Gilchrist did not open the batting because he was the best batsman in the Australian side. Tendulkar did it because of a simple reason – he was the best batsman in the Indian side, and so it made sense for India to have him face as many of the 50 overs as possible. This argument has not changed much over 15 years, even though the later batting has definitely been superior in this decade. Given this role, Tendulkar has more than met the targets set for him by the Indian side. As has Gilchrist for Australia.
This is a misreading of Tendulkar’s ODI career. Many people looking at Tendulkar’s 16000+ runs and 43 tons in one-dayers forget how average his initial ODI career was. Tendulkar, for a long time, was a much better/accomplished Test player than an ODI batsman. The nadir came during the 5-nation 1993 Hero Cup when Sachin Tendulkar was in the worst ODI form of his life and there were calls for axing him from the team.
Going into the 1993 final match against the West Indies, the non-performing Kapil Dev was also in a similar spot. And it came out that India was reduced to 161/5 (after three successive wickets for no runs) bringing Kapil to join Tendulkar. They staged a mini-recovery and allowed India to post 225, a reasonable score in those days, with Tendulkar remaining not out on 28 from 43 (yes, those were the days!) Kapil then returned back to take two early wickets and Kumble posted his record 6/12 as the Windies were bundled out for 123. I remember how that partnership helped protect both Sachin and Kapil from being tossed out immediately. I suppose if India had lost the final, maybe the selectors may have looked closely at the team composition. But when you win, you don’t change the team – Everybody knows that!
In those days, Tendulkar batted at No. 4 and was getting demoted because of his poor form. In contrast, Vinod Kambli was the toast of the hour. Anyway, fast forward a bit. Sachin makes a sole fifty against Sri Lanka in the next ODI series. He was in great form in the Tests which India won 3-0 (all by an innings), so his Test place was never in danger. But whether he deserved a spot in the ODI team remained a question.
And then the New Zealand tour that changed everything. In the second match, New Zealand were all out for 142. Tendulkar was promoted as the opener for the chase. He was promoted because the Indian opener in the previous match, Sidhu, was injured because of a neck strain. Tendulkar made 82 from 49 balls with 15 fours and 2 sixes, i.e, 72 out of 82 runs came from hits that crossed the boundary. This was a sensational innings and everyone who watched it were stunned by the audacity. Tendulkar continued his good form into the next few matches and so established his spot at the top of the order.
Now, remember Tendulkar was not the legend that he is today. A few months later, Tendulkar made his first ODI century against Australia and was criticized for playing slow. I saw that innings and it was excruciating. Tendulkar raced to his fifty in no time (probably faster than run-a-ball) and then made his century off 130 balls. He really wanted to get his century and slowed down to ensure that he didn’t take any risks. If I remember correctly, even Azharuddin, then captain, criticized Tendulkar. India won the match, so Tendulkar escaped without damage.
Tendulkar then made 3 ducks and an 8 in succession, made a century, then managed enough consistency and finally enough big scores to seemingly ensure no questions would be raised again about his spot. But the questions would come again in a different form, which many would be familiar with. The problem was that Tendulkar was performing so well up the order that the team depended upon him heavily for victories.
If Tendulkar went early, India invariably lost. India needed Tendulkar to hold the innings together. One obvious answer was for Tendulkar to play lower down the order (i.e., NOT face 50 overs) so that his dismissal didn’t mean the end of the game. So there were quite a few matches where Tendulkar did bat down the order. And it didn’t quite work out. Tendulkar was back at the top and this time, he would be there for a long time.
In short, Tendulkar’s opening spot was more of an accident [Sidhu's injury, small score, chasing, not much risk] than a strategic decision. Even with his explosive batting, his position at the top was not an universal guarantee, even and especially when he hit that slow first hundred. India had many make-shift openers during the 90’s (Mongia, Prabhakar) and Tendulkar was someone who happened to be successful. His success created a second problem when India failed to win matches without him and so people actually wanted him to bat down the order, which for various reasons, did not last for long.
And that is the way, my friends, history went.
Recent Comments