Email
Print
ShareIt seems only yesterday when MS Dhoni led a young team to South Africa. Nobody gave them a chance in hell, but they came back with the T20 World Cup.
They did it in spite of - dare I say, because of - the absence of the Fab Five 'permanent members' of the Indian cricket team: Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Kumble.
Of course, Laxman and Kumble had by then already lost their places in the one-day side. But Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly opted out of the T20 World Cup, either because they needed rest as Tendulkar now says, or because they thought, like most pundits did, that the T20 would be just a tamasha. How wrong the pundits were -- both about T20 and the young Indian team's chances -- and what a transformation in Indian cricket since then!
The next inflection point came after India lost the Test series 2-1 to Australia. Those days, our expectations against Australia used to be so low that it was considered something of an achievement just to have come close.
So when Dravid and Ganguly were left out of the one-day tri-series that followed, reportedly at Dhoni's insistence, there was the familiar hue and cry. Without players with experience of Australian conditions, the team would be humiliated, the pundits beat their chests and proclaimed.
But the new team's lack of experience of losing in Australia turned out to be an asset: they registered India's first one-day series triumph Down Under. (And remember, that series came not long after Australia had retained the one-day World Cup emphatically, and they still had players like Gilchrist.)
But didn't Sachin win us the series in Australia?
Sachin Tendulkar played an important part in sealing that triumph in Australia, getting a century and a ninety in the finals. But, overshadowed by the euphoria over Tendulkar were the real match-winners: the unsung bowlers.
In the first final, they restricted Australia to 239 on a relatively easy track. India reached the target at a canter with four overs to spare and six wickets in hand. So it's a moot point if Tendulkar's century was the difference between the sides, or the bowling.
In the second final, Tendulkar got 91, but at a strike rate of just four runs an over. It took some lusty hitting by Yuvraj and Dhoni for India to reach 258, which was still under par for the course. It was Praveen Kumar's haul of four wickets that won India the match, but most people only remember Tendulkar's 91.
In the eight previous matches of that tri-series, Tendulkar reached a fifty only once, and that when India chased a modest 180 in 50 overs. The most consistent run-getter for India was actually Gambhir, proving that he was not just a T20 wonder.
In fact, Gambhir and Yuvraj have since then quickly established themselves as Test stars too, as soon as they got a decent opportunity and suitable batting position. (Decent opportunity means knowing it isn't a stop-gap arrangement, and that you will continue in the playing 11 as long as your performance holds up -- something Yuvraj was denied for years despite his obvious talent.)
But aren't the newbies only good for T20s?
So, if the perception that Tendulkar is indispensable gets dented when you take a closer look at his last 'great' one-day performance in the tri-series Down Under, what's happened since then only reinforces that premise.
Take the Sri Lanka series, where Mendis the menace mesmerised the vaunted Indian batting lineup in the Tests, with Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman all averaging less than 25 and only Sehwag and Gambhir saving India from a total rout. In the one-day series that followed immediately, which Tendulkar missed due to injury, it was Mendis' turn to be mesmerised.
In the very first over he faced from Mendis, Suresh Raina stepped down the wicket and thumped him over long-on for a huge six. And Dhoni quickly figured out how to knock him around for singles and twos. To put the one-day team's conquest of Mendis into perspective, you have to understand batsmen are actually more vulnerable in ODIs because they have to take more risks, whereas in Tests you can afford to just block everything until you figure a bowler out.
When the team returned to Sri Lanka this year, their dominance over Mendis and co. was complete, winning the series 4-1. Tendulkar's 5, 6 and 7 in the three matches he played generated much angst in the media over how umpiring decisions had done him in, but one viewer I thought sent in a pertinent question to a sports channel: Why does he keep getting into close LBW calls in the first place?
But isn't Sachin a consistent performer?
Nobody in his right mind can question Tendulkar's record, talent, and longevity in the game. But an objective assessment will show he's a shadow of the force he once was in one-dayers -- in terms of his strike power, fitness and agility in the field.
From the start of 2008, Tendulkar has averaged less than 35 in ODIs, 10 short of his career average. What's more telling is that his strike rate too has fallen below his career average. This, at a time when strike rates have generally been rising, with teams routinely scoring above 300 and chasing those down too.
Tendulkar's recent strike rate of 82 (that is, 5 runs an over) would yield an average team score of 250, which is usually too little these days. Add to that the fact that he comes opening, when there are field restrictions to be taken advantage of, and you can see the temptation for Dhoni to make Sehwag and Gambhir his first choice opening pair.
Tendulkar has also missed more than half of India's ODIs over the past year, mostly due to injuries. Each time he comes back to the one-day team, the successful Sehwag-Gambhir combination gets broken, and one of the upcoming middle order batsmen has to sit out.
The most important element in a champion one-day side is the opening in both batting and bowling. Sehwag and Gambhir complement each other perfectly: It's a left-right combination and while Sehwag attacks off the backfoot, Gambhir chips down the wicket, thus forcing the bowlers to constantly alter their line and length. And, though Tendulkar continues to be swift between the wickets when he is fit, and he has always been a good judge of a run, the Sehwag-Gambhir running between the wickets is something else.
But doesn't Dhoni need him in the field?
In the field too, Tendulkar now has to be kept in the inner circle because his dodgy elbow makes throwing in from the deep hazardous for him. But we have seen in the recent England series what a force Raina and Rohit are in the 30-yard circle in not just cutting off singles but effecting run-outs. I can't remember the last time I saw Tendulkar get a run-out with a direct hit.
It was revealing that Dhoni chose to rest Tendulkar in the last two ODIs in Sri Lanka, instead of allowing him to come good in the series and 'avenge' those three LBWs. Only a fly on the wall during a meeting of selectors with Dhoni can tell if he would really prefer Tendulkar taking a much longer rest so that he can groom a couple more youngsters by giving them a long enough exposure to international cricket.
Who knows, maybe Yusuf Pathan can then emerge as India's Symonds in World Cup 2011, with his six-hitting and part-time bowling. And Tendulkar can always come back into the team if the new-comers prove no good.
The sabbatical from ODIs may also not be such a bad thing for Tendulkar and his legions of fans, because he can then concentrate on Test cricket, aim for that 50-century mark, and be around -- fit, hungry and free from injury -- much longer.
How's that?
With inputs from R Krishna
