India's century fixation

[Donny]

Time to shed the century fixation

Sambit Bal

There is a certain absurdity to our fixation with centuries. One solitary run – a tickle to fine leg, a frantic scramble off the block, or even a nervous edge to third man - can confer an innings an exalted status in our hearts and the record books. Ninety-nine is a heroic tragedy; a century is all glory. But however absurd that sounds, it is an inescapable truth of cricket: centuries have besotted cricketers and cricket fans alike ever since the game began. The only difference is in degrees: to some, it matters much more. That difference is perhaps the starkest between Australia and India.

In the light of their respective histories, that is perhaps understandable. India weren't much of an international side till the 1980s and, invariably, Indians sought to mitigate the abjectness of their team in the personal performances of a few of their stars. For millions in a nation seeking pride, Sunil Gavaskar was a monumental symbol; his hundreds were not only the saving grace but the raison d'etre for watching cricket. Kapil Dev added another dimension to hero-worship in the early '80s, and India as a cricketing nation felt almost fulfilled when Gavaskar (highest run-getter) and Kapil Dev (highest wicket-taker) scaled personal summits. The nation expects more collective achievement of its cricket team today, but old afflictions remain. We are still obsessed with crunching numbers.

By the all's-well-that-ends-well philosophy, this piece will seem a petty quibble. After all, India beat Australia comfortably at Gwalior, and it would have perhaps not been possible without centuries from Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. They batted with calm and flair after the first-over dismissal of Virender Sehwag, and at 150 for 1 after 30 overs, it was clear that only senseless batting or sensational bowling could prevent India from reaching a huge total.

Just how huge that total could be depended to a large extent on the men in the middle. Australia had brutalised India's attack in their last encounter, and Andy Bichel bats at No. 9 in the current outfit. But if the present touring party has a weakness, it is their bowling. So after reaching a position of command, the wisdom of the moment lay in upping the tempo and hammering home the advantage. In the last one-day series on Indian soil, 300-plus targets had been hunted down with ease, and with a team like Australia, as little should be left to chance as possible.

Yet, instead of easing into overdrive, the scoring rate stalled. Only 46 runs came between the 30th and the 40th overs, which were shared largely by Brad Hogg and Andrew Symonds. The reason was palpable - Tendulkar was working his way to his 35th. After racing to 80 off 86 balls, he started to take his time. His next 20 runs consumed 32 balls, and came as 18 singles and a two. In that ten-over stretch, Tendulkar played out 12 dot-balls, which is all right if a few scoring shots are boundaries; in the context of the match, it was like playing out two maiden overs.

Compared to this, Laxman's progress from 80 to 100 (23 balls) was a gallop, but considering that he batted well into the last ten overs, less than a-run-a-ball was still not good enough. It was only some familiar hitting from Yuvraj Singh and a highly unexpected dash at the end from Ajit Agarkar that took India to 283. In the end, it was enough, and it is hard to complain about two men who scored 202 of these runs. But a touch more urgency and a touch less concern about personal landmarks could have taken India beyond 300.

A crawl to a century is not an unfamiliar sight in cricket; it is only a problem when it runs contrary to the team's cause. More than anyone else, Australia's batsmen have mastered the philosophy of blitheness when it comes to personal landmarks, and perhaps that's the reason their game is less encumbered and much more effective. Most of their centuries come in a blaze rather than a struggle because they don't believe in letting up. Matthew Hayden didn't race to 380 by being weighed down by the record, and it is not unusual for Adam Gilchrist to bring up his hundred with a touch of audacity.

Tendulkar used to be like that. He was driven in his early years by a desire to dominate and conquer. Centuries came in joyous abandon with a cascade of strokes. Not since Gundappa Viswanath had we seen an Indian batsman so oblivious to an approaching landmark. He let his natural game dictate his response to each ball. Centuries came because they had to.

But let us not be harsh on him. He is 30; responsibilities have grown and so have expectations, including his own. Still, it is hard not to lament, at least occasionally, the loss of his liberation from an unhealthy Indian trait. He has shown, even in his recent reticent past, where his game can soar when he allows himself freedom of expression in a crunch situation. He was thrilling in his 92 at Trent Bridge when India were trying to save a Test last year, and he was majestic in 176 in another matchsaving performance against West Indies at Kolkata last November. Not to forget his 98 against Pakistan in the World Cup - how many of his 35 one-day hundreds do we remember better?

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden Asia Cricket and Wisden Cricinfo in India.

[couragous cloke]

I dont know about everyone else but i thought that was a good read...

Jus watch a tape of when Steve Waugh made that century in Sydney and you'll see how important it is to get to 100..

[HAL]

Allright, Ill watch it.