Don’t get me wrong; I’m as much in love with Sachin Tendulkar (a.k.a., god among men, He-Man, Bradman Remixed) as the next India fan. But I cannot stand useless columns or articles devoted to idolozing the guy. At this point in his career, after countless tributes, I don’t see why editors see fit to publish flowery odes like Dwaipayan Datta’s latest in the Times of India. A sample:
Sachin Tendulkar did not get his 100th ton on Sunday but even his early dismissal was evidence of the integrity with which he has played the game for over two decades. Against the West Indies on Sunday, Sachin decided to walk off despite being given not out by Australian umpire Steve Davies.
All praise to batsmen who walk, especially in “high stakes” circumstances, but at this point in his innings, Tendulkar had faced all of three balls. He had more than 95 runs to score before contemplating the 100th century mark. It’s very probable that he could have lost his wicket between Ravi Rampaul’s ball and being on 99 not out. It’s one thing to walk near the end of a potentially fantastic innings, and another after having just faced two balls. But here’s a puzzler: if Tendulkar had not walked, do you think his integrity would have been impeached?