It's been a hot topic among the Indians for the last several months that Sachin Tendulkar have never taken the Indian team into any heights, and the only thing Sachin plays for is his own personal records. Let me clear up some facts about me first, I'm one of the biggest Sachin fans and also will continue to be so.
Now lets get back to the point. Let's just close our eyes for some moments and try to recall history. Untill about the year 2001, the Indian team's victory was decided on Sachin's performance. The whole team was a one man game, and the one man was Sachin Tendulkar. While he was injured due to his sore back before the World Cup 1999, the Indian Team played a lot of cricket, and became perhaps the worst team in the world. But as soon as Sachin came in, the team once again regained the previous glory. Can the critics tell me why was it that the team buckled without Sachin ? According to the critics, Sachin have never played for the team, then can they tell me why the team sank without Sachin during that period, and magically once again came back to it's previous glory as soon as Sachin came in ? The answer of the critics will be that they don't give a damn about history, well in that case Don Bradman too should be a forgotten episode since he too is a man of the past !!
Next, match winning innings are mostly played in ODI's by individuals. In test matches, results depend upon the entire team, and an individual cannot be blamed alone. Let's take a look at ODI's. People keep criticizing Sachin that he never won any matches for India. If those people know what's cricket, they will also know that an opener is not supposed to play throughout the entire innings and single handedly win ODI matches. An openers job is to give a good start to the innings and play till the middle of the innings, the middle orders job is to capitalize on the good start given by the openers, and the players taking guard for the last few overs are to blast the bowling attack. Sachin have done his job as an opener countless times. He have scored 72 half-centuries. What does that prove ? It proves that he have done his job as an opener much better than others in the team.
Next, people want to always bring up the issue that how many of his centuries have won matches for India. Take a look at the list below -
1) 110 == v/s Aus in SL 1994/95 at Colombo == India won by 31 runs.
2) 115 == v/s NZ in Ind 1994/95 at Vadodara == India won by 23 runs.
3) 105 == v/s WI in Ind 1994/95 at Jaipur ==India won by 5 runs.
4) 112== v/s SL in UAE 1994/95 at Sharjah == India won by 8 wickets.
5) 127== v/s Ken in Ind 1995/96 at Cuttack ==India won by 7 wickets.
6) 118 == v/s Pak in UAE 1995/96 at Sharjah == India won by 28 runs.
7) 114 == v/s SA in Ind 1996/97 at Mumbai == India won by 74 runs.
8) 104 == v/s Zim in SA 1996/97 at Benoni == India won by 6 wickets.
9) 117 == v/s NZ in Ind 1996/97 at Bangalore == India won by 8 wickets.
10) 100 == v/s Aus in Ind 1997/98 at Kanpur == India won by 6 wickets.
11) 134 == v/s Aus in UAE 1997/98 at Sharjah == India won by 6 wickets.
12) 100 == v/s Ken in Ind 1997/98 at Calcutta ==India won by 9 wickets.
13) 128 == v/s SL in SL 1997/98 at Colombo == India won by 6 runs.
14) 127== v/s Zim in Zim 1998/99 at Bulawayo == India won by 8 wickets.
15) 141 == v/s Aus in BD 1998/99 at Dhaka == India won by 44 runs.
16) 118== v/s Zim in UAE 1998/99 at Sharjah == India won by 7 wickets.
17) 124== v/s Zim in UAE 1998/99 at Sharjah == India won by 7 wickets.
18) 140 == v/s Ken in Eng 1999 at Bristol == India won by 94 runs.
19) 120 == v/s SL in SL 1999/00 at Colombo ==India won by 23 runs.
20) 186== v/s NZ in Ind 1999/00 at Hyderabad == India won by 174 runs.
21) 122 == v/s SA in Ind 1999/00 at Vadodara == India won by 4 wickets.
22) 139 == v/s Aus in Ind 2000/01 at Indore == India won by 118 runs.
23) 122== v/s WI in Zim 2001 at Harare == India won by 6 wickets.
24) 146 == v/s Kenya in S.Africa 2001 at Paarl == India won by 186 runs.
25) 113== v/s Sri Lanka in England 2002 at Bristol == India won by 63 runs.
26) 152 == v/s Nam in SA 2002/03 at Pietermaritzburg == India won by 181 runs.
27) 100 == v/s Aus in Ind 2003/04 at Gwalior == India won by 37 runs.
28) 102 == v/s NZ in Ind 2003/04 at Hyderabad = India won by 145 runs.
........ and as far as his rest of the ODI centuries go, have a look at them, and see what the other players contributed. And if you still blame Sachin for the rest of his centuries where India lost, then you must be living in a delusional world.
Apart from that, another point is that people dislike Sachin because of his enormous wealth. My reply is his critics never donated Sachin the earnings which he possess, nor did Sachin go to rob a bank. He earned it by his qualities, as if Sachin should consult his critics and ask for their permission before making his financial decisions. Can you tell me why only Sachin was compared to Don Bradman by Bradman himself ? There have been so many other cricketers who have come after Bradman's era, why only Sachin is given that honour ? Is it because the rest of the world all consist of ignorants and are fools, and only Sachin' critics have all the knowledge in the world ? And one more thing, the rest of the world is just fine about Sachin, it's people in India who are doubting Sachin's contributions.
And the last topic is regionalism. Ganguly fans are furious over the sacking of their hero, and in the process want Sachin to be sacked too. Their logic is that Sachin too is out of form. My answer is that Ganguly was not dropped overnight, he was failing for almost about 2 years, heck maybe even 3 years. And if you have any doubt over it, go to https://cricinfo.com and check for yourself, because I won't be listing those statistics here and also because the topic is about Tendulkar not Ganguly. I ain't disrespecting Ganguly or his fans, I'm just pointing out the facts and logic. All I'm doing is expressing myself which is my right.
And about the debate of winning matches, maybe according to his critics match winners are those players who score all the runs their team requires to defeat the opposition team single handedly .... or maybe someone who scores the last winning runs for their team during the end of the match, isn't it ??
