Column

Almost the entire country, if the number of telephone calls and smses this newspaper has received all Thursday is any indication, seems to be exercised over the fact that Sachin Tendulkar does not merit a place even in the top 20 batsmen of all time put out by the ICC.

More than the logical, such ratings, rankings and other stats in cricket usually oscillate between the banal and the ridiculous. Yet, I must confess to being surprised when I read the ICC’s top 100 list of batsmen with Tendulkar at number 26.

Looked at any which way, this seemed a glaring mishap. A day later, however, after the ICC released the list of bowlers too, things have fallen into place. There is no mystery, and to say that these lists are full of lies is perhaps taking the whole thing more seriously than it deserves.

The whole exercise, to put it in contemporary television jargon, is aimed at getting high eyeballs and TRP ratings, but in its cricketing merit it is just fun, and consequently, also very funny, if you get what I mean.

In saying this, I must clarify that Tendulkar is only a fraction of the dissonance I find with ‘cricketing merit’ of the ICC’s ratings. In the batting list, George Headley is at 21, Brian Lara, finds himself at number 23 and Walter Hammond — considered as the only true rival to Don Bradman in batting excellence — comes in as low as 27. Why, even Everton Weekes at 13 seems something of drag on common knowledge.

In fact, I find Gavaskar at number 20 unacceptable too, with Mike Hussey, Mohammad Yousuf and Doug Walters — to name only three — above him. Thirteen of Gavaskar’s 34 hundreds came against the dreaded West Indies, and throughout his career he played without a helmet, and some of the other protective gear that has made modern batting that much easier.

But with Javed Miandad, Greg Chappell and Viru Sehwag occupying positions 34, 35 and 51 respectively, the irrationality acquires a distinct skew.

With the bowlers’ list, however, the anomalies start to become so commonplace as to make these ICC rankings lose their raison de etre. I may not find Sydney Barnes and George Lohmann at numbers 1 and 2 as contentious as Tony Lock at number 6.

Ahead of Shane Warne, who comes in only at number 15, or Dennis Lillee who huffs and puffs his way to number 34? And Wasim Akram, regarded by many players and critics, as the best bowler of his generation, at 59? Even below the erratic Shoaib Akhtar who trots in at 45?And is EAS Prasanna not eligible to be even in the top 100?

Seeing the many inconsistencies thrown up, the ICC could have redefined the parameters to come up with something more credible, or chosen not to term it the ‘best-ever’ list or some such.

In my view, only Don Bradman can have his batting greatness perfectly defined by stats. On the other hand, even facts and figures don’t do justice to Gary Sobers’ brilliant all-round skills. I am still undecided between Bradman and Sobers for the numbers 1 and 2 cricketers of all time because in some cases stats say a lot, in some others, not enough.
For the rest, take your pick. And have fun.