Sachin, etc.
Avinash Subramaniam
There's a school of thought that subscribes to the view that Sachin is India. (Also mine.) In other words, to take out India, take out Sachin. (A view, shared, among others, by Mcgrath, that prompted me to write my earlier article making a case for rotation.) As always, even more so when it comes to our national obsession, there's an equally vehement school of thought that's firmly opposed to this view. (A view vehemently, and sometimes vituperatively, reinforced by some of mail I got reacting specifically to one of the premises I based my article on.) Which... sort of, gives me the perfect opening to tell you why I think India is Sachin etc. And perhaps prompt further discussion on the subject of rotation. Though, that does seem a touch ambitious, considering how little we think long term about our cricket.
Make no mistake, cricket is only going to get more. The pressure on the players: more. Fitness levels: more demanding. And the stakes: higher. But this is not about another case for rotation. This is about Sachin, easily the greatest cricketer of all time. (In my, shamelessly biased, book of Indian cricketers. Fortunately, I am still not biased/foolish enough to presume anyone comes close to being the greatest cricketer of all time that Sir Garfield Sobers was/is.) Nothing brings this team and nation down the way a Sachin dismissal can. The anti Sachin in India brigade would never admit it but when Sachin goes, the first thing that must come to all our minds is... what will India do now? Ok, even if only a fleeting thought. But still, that's pure emotion. And one can't base a point of view on pure emotion, can one? You need facts to back it up. So let's.
As far as I can remember, the series Sachin really began to make his presence felt as the mainstay of the Indian batting line-up was just after the first time India toured SA. (I can't quite recall the exact year. I think it was in '89, under Azhar.) Actually, the now forgotten Pravin Amre was the real find of the tour while, I think, Shastri and Sachin made the other more significant contributions. That was the tour that saw players like Sachin and Kumble come of age, the beginning of the end for Sanjay Manjrekar, Dilip Vengsarkar and Vinod Kambli, and the start of the little known Sachin-Azza rivalry.
Post this South African tour; Sachin began to assert himself more and more in the batting order. And the tour Down Under that followed saw him usurp Azza's spot as numero uno in the Indian batting order. After that, there was no looking back. Since then, Sachin has maintained this extraordinary record of consistently being among the top three in the Indian batting averages on every tour thereafter. Think about that.
Which other Indian batsman can boast of that kind of record? Which other Indian player can you think of who has never had bad series for such a long time? Not one. Some say, Sachin is as important to India as Gavaskar and Kapil once were. And we all know what happened when Kapil was dropped for one Test match. (Forget about disciplinary grounds, the very thought of an Indian team minus Kapil was... you know the reaction that followed.) And if Kapil was the popular choice, Sunny was the experts' choice. So if Sunny and Kapil can be thought of in those terms, I see no reason why Sachin can't. (Sachin is, if not more, just as valuable to the Indian team as Kapil or Sunny were.) Interestingly, Sachin also happens to embody the two things we always wished Sunny and Kapil had. (In Sunny's case, a greater hunger to attack and I Kapil's case, a little more maturity and cricket acumen. We know Sachin has both. And more.) The fact that India lost everything Down Under under an incredibly pressured Sachin, but came out tops despite a woefully under-performing Sourav, on the tour just gone by, could be another manifestation of how India breaks most when Sachin breaks.
The Aussies really got to Sachin on that tour. And the immense pressure he was under, had a lot to do with the team going under. Sourav on the other hand, and this is going to be a real hot potato for people to stomach, is not as important to India's fortunes. Yes, his inspirational, aggressive, captaincy had a huge lot to do with the historic victory but.. looked at another way, when Sourav fails, India doesn't necessarily fail. Or when Rahul fails, India doesn't necessarily fail. Or when, now, Laxman fails, India is not that pressured. But when Sourav and Sachin have failed, India, most likely will have failed. Like I said, when Sachin fails, the first thought that comes to mind is... what will India do? (We don't think that when the others go, do we?) Am I making sense?
Maybe this will help. Go back into the past and look for a series where Sachin has failed, no under-performed, and India has come out tops. Chances are, you'll draw a blank. Now look for a series where Sachin has succeeded and one or more of the big 'others' haven't, and India has come out tops. (Now that's a bet I'd be willing to put a bit of my hard earned money on.) The point is, India doesn't necessarily fail when one or even two of the others fail, as long as Sachin is there to save the day. (Which must make a pretty strong case for Sachin etc., no?)
Avinash Subramaniam
Mail Avinash Subramanium
