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.

My fear with this obsession with centuries is that it could plant the seed of self-serving cricket among young players. As it is, our system of domestic cricket tends to reward the individual run-getter over the team player, but if young players are told that hundreds count in one-day cricket, they might become poorer players. An innings of 80 from 80 balls is better than one that becomes a century from 120 balls.

Here are some numbers that are worthy of debate. In the last ten years India have played 335 matches and scored 101 centuries. It means India\'s batsmen score a century every 3.37 innings. Of these 335 matches India have won 162 and are currently placed sixth out of, effectively, eight countries. In the same period, Australia played 279 games and their batsmen scored 74 centuries, that is a century every 3.77 innings, almost 12% longer. They won 196 games and their number one slot has hardly ever been challenged. A one-day century in Australia is a nice landmark but not a revered one.

The value of Tendulkar\'s excellent innings therefore, lay more in the clever use of the middle overs and in the strong finish it provided. He only stepped towards the hundred when the more crucial objective of scoring enough runs had been achieved. It was an excellent innings because it put the team first, because Tendulkar stayed at the other end aware that Dhoni was, for the moment, the more effective player. And Dhoni acknowledged that on the penultimate ball when he ran for his life to put Tendulkar, now on 99, back on strike. It was a wonderful moment.

If India have a workable solution for the middle order, and the crucial middle overs, they are still looking for one in the field. India are catching reasonably well but for some reason, hardly ever hit the stumps. Hitting the stumps is a near perfect equivalent of taking a catch and yet, a misdirected throw hardly ever arouses the kind of feeling that a dropped catch does. I am convinced that if players hit the stumps with some consistency they will produce a very healthy one wicket per match and save a lot of runs by planting doubts in a batsman\'s mind.

Hitting the stumps is a function of some skill but even more, of commitment and in its pursuit you can tell how seriously a cricketer takes his fielding. And the news, for a lot of young kids using big bats and dreaming of centuries while shirking from fielding drills, is that it is far easier for an ordinary fielder to become an excellent one than it is for an ordinary batsman or bowler to become outstanding.

If India\'s fielders can take a daily vitamin pill, twenty five direct hits a day compulsorily, they will surprise themselves at key moments in the World Cup.