So January ended well for India. The Tatas showed their vision and Sachin Tendulkar his hunger. India\'s icons are in good form. But better still it allowed us to forget the result of a dubious, voyeuristic show. I was beginning to wonder if "Indian pride" could be so easily solicited and assigned.

Tendulkar has forty one hundreds in one-day cricket, and while that is a mighty fine number we might do well to take a step back and allow ourselves to recognise that a one-day century is not the definition of a good innings but merely a by-product of one. If Tendulkar had been caught by Lara on 84, it would scarcely have made it a lesser innings.

A Test hundred is different because it invokes elements of grit, of resilience, even of cussedness. It necessitates a great defence, it requires patience and far greater judgement in shot making; qualities that Ratan Tata might appreciate. A Test century is rarely a bad innings and almost always a useful one.

It is a good ambition to have even it isn\'t one to be obsessed about.

In the one-day game the desire to score a century, and its use as a comparative indicator of batsmanship is dangerous. Ricky Ponting, as fine a batsman as there has ever been, has 21 centuries from 266 games and has made 9670 runs @42.2. Sachin Tendulkar has 41 centuries from 378 games and has 14728 runs @ 44.2.

These are comparable figures and fair to both batsmen even if the century count is vastly different.

... contd.