NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Rule, Brittannia!

Is media bias on the increase? How does it effect you, the reader? Sound off ...

After Sachin Tendulkar's explosive, knock-the-stuffing-out innings at Lord's, it was expected that the British media would shower encomiums.

Former England skipper Michael Atherton said that he did not think even Dr. W G Grace - whose 150th birth anniversary it was - would have played like Sachin.

Another cricket scribe, Simon Wilde, wrote in the Sunday Times, "Will they be staging a match on April 14 (sic), 2123, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar? It seemed a reasonable question to ask at Lord's that night, after the brilliant young Indian, who may lay claim to be the W. G. Grace of his day, had played a game quite different from that of the world's next best cricketers."

The last comment comes from the pen (or is it keyboard?) of the author of a book -- Number One: The World's Best Batsmen and Bowlers - that followed the careers of 22 batsmen and 28 bowlers from all over the world since the inception of the game, from little known English cricketers to Ranjitsinhji to Brian Lara, Shane Warne and Steve Waugh.

Released recently, the book gives brief descriptions of the selected cricketers but does not include any Indian (with the exception of Ranji), Pakistani or Sri Lankan.

There is no mention of Vijay Merchant, Vinoo Mankad, Bishen Bedi, Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev or, ahem - Sachin Tendulkar. Other stalwarts who are conspicuous by their absence are Javed Miandad, Imran Khan, Arvinda da Silva and Allan Donald.

Writer Frank Keating, reviewing the book in the June issue of the Wisden Cricket Monthly, has rightly pointed out this fact and labeled the book as 'bonny, brilliant, bunk.' Keating's critique is based on the premise that Wilde (who according to the critic is a brilliant young cricket writer destined to go places) has based his judgement on the Coopers & Lybrand theory of cricket ratings, which apparently deals with performances under different conditions and not just cold statistics. Robin Marlar, reviewing the same book in Cricketer International has mentioned that it portrays 'genuine cricket giants.'

While every author has the right to pick and choose his/her own favourite lists, it is also necessary for them to call them as their 'personal' choice. Titles like 'Number One' imply much more than a personal preference, indicating that the player(s) actually rank number one via some objective method of selection.

How, for example, does a Steve Waugh figure as tops in the all-time great all-rounders category?

My reaction to the author's selection is not the expected now-why-don't-you-eat-your-book-Mr. Wilde, after Sachin lit up Lord's. It began when I first came across the book early in May, while in London. My first reaction, while I leafed through the pages, was one of horror. How could the author not include cricketers mentioned earlier? Why come out with a book that limits toppers to 22 batsmen and 28 bowlers only? Why?

The answer lies in the belief shared by most British cricket writers that unless one scores runs in or against England, one does not qualify for greatness. Take Sachin's case. Vic Marks wrote in The Observer, "We had heard reports after the recent series between India and Australia that the batting of Sachin Tendulkar had reached a new plane, that he was unquestionably the best batsman in world cricket. Well, the little master used the stage… to confirm that those reports are true."

The stage, according to Marks, necessarily has to be in England, and if it happens to be Lord's, so much the better. The decimation of Australian bowlers at Sharjah, or Perth (in 1990) or any other venue, by the same batsman, when the country's national honour is at stake, does not count for much. The moment runs are scored in England, due honour is bestowed. Sunil Gavaskar's epic 220 runs, scored while chasing a mammoth score against England at the Oval, got him much more adulation than the tons and double tons he scored in and against the West Indies.

Writers like Wilde and Marks needed a confirmation that Tendulkar is indeed the best, and the little fella duly obliged. What then did they do? They put him in the same bracket as Dr. WG Grace, just like the Aussies who put him on par with Sir Donald Bradman. Too bad the Americans are not into cricket, otherwise we would have had a comparison with Babe Ruth!

Now that Sachin has graced the 150th birth anniversary of the good Doctor, I sincerely hope he finds the time to play in the 50th edition of the Kanga League this year. My mind races back, over a decade in time, to the day he made his debut in the 'A' (premier) division of Mumbai's most loved tournament.

From the non-striker's end, I watched him take guard on a minefield of a pitch against a well-known and experienced first-class bowler. While us mere mortals struggled to put bat to ball, thanks to the unpredictable wicket, the 15-year-old's first scoring shot was a huge, perfectly timed six, straight behind the bowlers back!

My sympathies, then, were with the experienced first-class bowler -- as they are, now, with McGrath, Donald, Srinath and Kumble.

Hemant Kenkre