Obsessed with ratings and Sachins greatness

The obsession with cricket greatness,particularly the greatness of Sachin Tendulkar...

The obsession with cricket greatness,particularly the greatness of Sachin Tendulkar,seems to have become a full-time occupation as our young republic is aging,not entirely gracefully,in this time of rapid economic and fairly rampant social change.

Dream Teams,annual all-star Playing XIs,Hall of Fame inductions,and ICC lists that measure the form of cricket players at various points in history,are only meant to be academic sidebars in a game that isnt really about subjective analyses on who was better than whom. But we spend inordinate time and energy in scanning these lists to find Indian players on them,certain that at least Tendulkar will always be there,ready to celebrate when we locate his name,prepared to raise a disbelieving alarm if we dont.

So much so that reading the subtext,or in some cases the basic premise of that particular list doesnt seem to matter anymore. And the problem is not restricted to fans; it extends even to the responsible members of the Indian press. Like the noise in the media this past week over Matthew Hayden,and 25 others,being rated higher than Sachin Tendulkar in what was supposedly an official ICC all-time-greatness meter.

First,the list that was being so vigorously panned has been available on the Internet for years,ever since the ICC ratings first came out. Second,it doesnt measure greatness at all,as the International Cricket Council was at pains to explain a day after Indian newspapers and TV channels had erupted in throes of righteous indignation.

In a long press release,which they hoped would end all ambiguity,the ICC told the Indian media,like a teacher would explain to Class V students: The rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers but do not give a full picture of those players level of consistency or longevity in the game. A batsman or a bowler who averages around 700 ratings points for most of his career apart from a purple patch where he shoots up to 900 points before dropping down may be ranked higher on the all-time ratings. But that does not mean he should necessarily be considered to be better than a player who hovered around the 850-point mark for his entire career.

The release went on to add,When it comes to judging a players greatness over his career,its necessary to look at his entire graph rather than his peak. Its not so much how high a player soars as how long he stays there. If you think of a players graph as a mountain,a high,long plateau could be worth more than a single sky-scraping peak.

To make sure the point was driven home,it even mentioned Tendulkars name: Hence Tendulkar would be deemed greater than most other players despite having a lower peak and the icing on the cake was the parting shot,…frequently asked questions in relation to all the rankings can be found at http://www.iccreliancerankings.com.

Story continues below this ad

The same explanation couldve been easily accessed on the Internet,or a phone call couldve been made to Dubai. The Indian media which went all guns blazing with the news that Tendulkar had been slighted wouldve realised a day before that there was really no need to be angry and anguished,to make former cricketers spew venom,to call for an overhaul of the entire cricketing establishment because of its glaring bias against our great nation.

The ICC,Ive always held,is a weak body,run in a haphazard,off-hand manner,even bordering on rude and over-defensive during Malcolm Speeds reign as CEO. It can be slammed for many reasons: It dithers on all important issues,obsesses about matters such as slow over-rates,and gets rattled only when its business interests are hit. Countries,especially India,hold it for ransom at the drop of a hat and always get away with it.

Rarely does it get the opportunity to send out statements that highlight the inadequacies of someone else. Kudos to us in the Indian sports media for giving it this chance.