Cricket - FOREVER

plum wrote:Ricky Ponting is the most succesful captain ever but is clearly not a patch on Steve Waugh or Border or Taylor.
Same is the case with Dhoni

This I agree too.

V_S wrote:

And if I cannot include cb series, you cannot also credit the next gen solely for wc as Sachin was part of the team and his important tons and fifties contributed to the triumph. You know in your heart of hearts that my analysis of sanga's tactics is accurate but you are emotionally invested in the wc win and do not like my opinion.

As I am repeatedly saying, I don't discount his contribution, but at the same time, I have to say that worldcup 2011 could not have been won without Dhoni, but the converse is not true, as it never happened in last 28 years where Sachin was part of it (except 1987). That's the difference Dhoni makes. Not in my wildest of dreams I had Sanga's tactics, because of which we won. Even if I accept it, I would give credit to our team of affecting their rhythm. If you all are discounting many such facts in that special world cup win after 28 years, that too chasing a record score of 275 for the first time in world cup history, you cannot expect me to acknowledge some tri-series wins. Natwest, Sharjah are all important games, but not as important as a world cup. Winning this
is completely different.

I have nowhere called the 90s or noughties indian team great, only said srt, Dravid and vvs were greats.

This I agree, except that fact I cannot put them in all time greatest cricketers.

its a misnomer that Sach phails in chases, its been rebutted from the day cricket forum were started in WWW
and mega bytes have been written on the same. for instance this match will go into record books that Sach had again phailed @ chasing
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/416240.html
would you attribute this loss to him?

This is again a classic example of panic, which is very similar to Chennai test 1999. I won't completely attribute this loss to Sachin as he was fulcrum for these matches, yet when a set batsman gives it away with just few runs more (12 runs?), as a specatator this gives a heart-break. When he knows that there is not much batting coming, he should not give away his wicket, expecting someone new will come and finish. These are the improvement areas which Dhoni worked in his favor and winning recently. This is again yet another example of why Sachin is not a match winner in chase of 250+. Again, if that match would have won, everyone will forget that was also played in home conditions, but when a world cup was won on our soil, it becomes insignificant. In that case, I also have to wipe many home wins (which many teams have) including the recent Ashes series which Eng won at their home. Why winning at home considered so insignificant?

Again, I disagree there with respect to 2003 world cup. I am not even saying, we should have won that game, but not even close enough. Lost by 125 runs. If Sachin or Ganguly or Shewag batted through with every other failing, then I can appreciate that what they can do if the team did not support? Now I cannot say that, right? They just panicked at the sight of 359 which was more dangerous of thoughts than the invincibles itself. Good that Shewag put some fight.

We cannot always blame, he didn't get a good team of finishers like today. Why not convert or build a team like that yourselves? Why not take that captaincy? If you leave it for others, I am just going to do my job, it might not work all the time. Out of those three/four matches (chasing), if he would have finished and won just one, that was enough for me to acknowledge him as greatest, but unfortunately it didn't happen. These are the areas which for me differentiates great from greatest.

  Now where did I say that I do not accept the WC result?  I just do not agree with comparing it with (a) the Eden Gardens debacle of 1996 or (b) the 1983 triumph over Lloyd's monsters.   You have said earlier in the argument that you do not believe in hypothetical situations.  By the same token, you don't really know what Dhoni's cubs would have done had they had to handle 1996 or Michael Holding & Co either, so please don't compare.  I am very happy to see Kohli maturing into a fine batsman and Dhawan has also been promising so far but I do not like comparisons any more than you do, so there is no need to pull down now retired batsmen just to nudge up the youngsters.  Isn't that what Rahman-ites do to Ilayaraja's legacy after all?

You have said earlier in the argument that you do not believe in hypothetical situations.  By the same token, you don't really know what Dhoni's cubs would have done had they had to handle 1996 or Michael Holding & Co either, so please don't compare.

You already agree that I don't believe in assumptions, but again another assumption thrown in. I didn't compare, but all the statements I made so far was based on the results we saw and not based on some assumptions. If we don't even know how these guys will play against Michael Holding/Mcgrath or for the 1996 scenario etc why do we even want to throw such assumptions? I too have lot of hypothetical questions, but those will not lead anywhere. All I am saying is, I am more comfortable watching these guys play (in ODIs) as they give more confidence that we will win and they have done it. It may not be true going forward, which I don't mind. That's all.

My 2 cents
(i.e. after discounting all those millions spent on betting & match fixing biz)

- In "team" games, talent may not always convert into match wins / trophy victories. Richard Hadlee had been as good a bowler as (or better than) Imran, Botham & Kapil. A lot less as a batsman than Kapil & Botham but nevertheless an allrounder who could be compared overall with the other three. Both in tests & ODI. Unfortunately, his teammates never helped him taste the successes that the other three enjoyed - by way of matches won.

- Unlike in other games (Tennis etc, even base ball - why, even test cricket), there is no "second chance" for a batsman in ODI Even the best talent can make mistakes in most sports and in many cases can make it up; But an ODI batsman is never forgiven. His wicket is like the penalty shoot-out in a soccer game. And, all balls sent by bowlers are not equals   That way, not necessarily each time the wicket is "thrown away"

iththOda en pai kAli

Some more cents from an old bank account...(i.e. before and after of my favourite 1983 world cup)

-Ahead of the tourney, The Hindu wrote an article with the heading "Who can stop the West Indian juggernaut" and one of my wing mates at hostel (possibly jocularly) said "India" and we all laughed at it. At the end of the tournament, he reminded us what happened and laughed at us

-Viv Richards supposedly "threw away" his wicket in the finals, chasing a very low target. Some even wrote condemning him that he batted as if he wanted to end the match in 30 overs (half of the total 60) but perished. However, such people didn't notice that other top order fellows too fell for single digits.

-Some propagate the mistaken thinking that India won by fluke in the finals (partly supported by the  5-0 thrashing that WI gave India in India within a few months after). Such people conveniently forget that India also beat the SAME WI team in their first match of the tournament!

-Though not as convincing as in the case of WCC down under  two years later (Champion's trophy where Ravi Shastri got an Audi car), Indian team did have strong moments in the 1983 Prudential cup. Examples - 2nd match against Australia in the league, semi finals against England. Those were strong performances IMHO. That way, though they weren't comparable to the Windies team of that time, they weren't pushovers either. With WI, it was case of 2 wins & 1 loss.

I don't know why I'm posting these here...but felt good to recall some of those moments
(Like V_Sji says, winning makes one feel good - no question about it )

V_S wrote:

You have said earlier in the argument that you do not believe in hypothetical situations.  By the same token, you don't really know what Dhoni's cubs would have done had they had to handle 1996 or Michael Holding & Co either, so please don't compare.

You already agree that I don't believe in assumptions, but again another assumption thrown in. I didn't compare, but all the statements I made so far was based on the results we saw and not based on some assumptions. If we don't even know how these guys will play against Michael Holding/Mcgrath or for the 1996 scenario etc why do we even want to throw such assumptions? I too have lot of hypothetical questions, but those will not lead anywhere. All I am saying is, I am more comfortable watching these guys play (in ODIs) as they give more confidence that we will win and they have done it. It may not be true going forward, which I don't mind. That's all.

Because you have repeatedly compared the consistency of the old team and the new (and made veiled attacks at the claim of greatness of the older players).  You cannot merely compare bald numbers of matches won or lost without context.  If you do, we will have to point out the quality of opposition those players faced.  And I am never ever going to accept opposition as a static factor (team won, irrespective of opposition) as that is simply not true and just not how cricket works at all.  The circumstances were different, so please celebrate these victories without pulling down the achievements of older players as there is simply no need.

To me it is true and I don't feel shy in expressing that, as I know the scars I have faced watching them. I have not pulled down anyone, those were the facts and I have very clearly expressed what were the issues I had. Tell me where I have pulled down anyone? I will stand corrected. Those were my concerns. To me a match is a match and the result matters most compared to anything else (individual performances). I am fine with anyone disagreeing. I cannot please everyone. I have already expressed that if the quality of the opposition was better those days, why not our batsmen (whom you all address as the greatest), if they are the greatest than those greater opponents (bowlers) could not be successful? I even stated that I just needed at-least one big win in a crucial finals or some big match for me to revere them, but unfortunately it didn't happen. What else you expect me to do? This again goes in a loop and goes to where we started. There is no point in this conversation as I already expressed before, as the way you see cricket and I see are totally different.

V_S wrote:I even stated that I just needed at-least one big win in a crucial finals or some big match for me to revere them, but unfortunately it didn't happen. 

And I stated several such crucial finals, upon which you promptly qualified it as "No, I expected them to win a WC". And you seem to believe a WC is won on the day of the finals and not through important performances throughout the tournament.  What is the point of arguing Sachin could not have won it without Dhoni? So why then should I not take away a little bit of the 2011 WC win by saying it cannot be compared to the 1983 win ( especially as that is true) or pointing out Sanga's inept captaincy?  The point is, he was part of the team that won the 2011 WC and was hoisted above the shoulders of his teammates in, as Kohli observed, a tribute to his efforts in carrying the team on his shoulders for so many years.  You cannot take away the WC win from Sachin just to suit your theory because the fact is he was acknowledged by one and all from Kirsten to even the explorer Mike Horn as a vital part of the team. If you want facts, I can give you the facts all day.  If you feel Sachin should have done more to clinch crucial matches, that is your opinion and I do not argue with that.  But there is no need to draw him into a comparison with Kohli because, to repeat again, the circumstances are different.

[quote="crimson king"]

V_S wrote:If you feel Sachin should have done more to clinch crucial matches, that is your opinion and I do not argue with that.  

Yes, that's the point.

crimson king wrote:But there is no need to draw him into a comparison with Kohli because, to repeat again, the circumstances are different.

Oh No, you again got it wrong. I will never do that comparison and I didn't do that at all, please check my posts again.

But by observing that Sachin could not have won CB series or WC without Dhoni, you are ultimately making a comparison between generations.   The way you phrased your arguments implies comparisons between the two generations.  What did I/we say?  Only that it is too early to compare Kohli to the greats.  If you don't like the idea of Sachin as a great, fine, I will give you Richards, Ponting, Sobers.  Either which way, it is ridiculously premature.  That is all.  Nowhere did I say Kohli is not talented.

Shami - Dhoni embarrassed him by getting Isshhaant to give him the test cap   ought to improve his new ball skills though.
cutting it in from short of good length were almost Asifque  other than Zak during 08 home series against Oz don't remember any
other Indian pacer doing it from that length.

Rohith- going by his domestic stats should have made the debut before Kohls/Rahane. if you could resist those fugly legside hoicks/
temptation to open should play for long @4.

Kohls- for a guy touted to be the next big thing in Indian cricket is so timid/clueless in tests, need a season of Ranji else will end up like Raina/Yuvarasa.

Ash- 100 just in time, looks far more competent test bat than Kohls, entha bat/bowl avg maintain panna seekiram test team skipper thaen 

 

So what do y'all think about the Bharat Ratna?

He deserved it, especially since Lata Mangeshkar got it (but not Mohd Rafi).  Lata opposed a badly needed South Mumbai flyover in the noughties as it would 'spoil her voice'.  What voice? So if it can be given to such a selfish person as her, it can be given to any achiever.  But they should also give a posthumous award to Dhyan Chand and confer it to some of the other sporting greats like Milkha Singh, Anand, Ramanathan Krishnan.  It is very very disappointing that this country does not appreciate the worth of Milkha Singh's achievements...as if coming fourth in an Olympic athletic event is child's play.

crimson king wrote:He deserved it, especially since Lata Mangeshkar got it (but not Mohd Rafi).  Lata opposed a badly needed South Mumbai flyover in the noughties as it would 'spoil her voice'.  What voice? So if it can be given to such a selfish person as her, it can be given to any achiever.  But they should also give a posthumous award to Dhyan Chand and confer it to some of the other sporting greats like Milkha Singh, Anand, Ramanathan Krishnan.  It is very very disappointing that this country does not appreciate the worth of Milkha Singh's achievements...as if coming fourth in an Olympic athletic event is child's play.

Totally second this. Bharat Ratna is a joke being given to Lata kooda absolutely ok. Sachin certainly deserved it, just for the impact he's had on India, its economy (there are studies about Sensex doing well when he did well in the 90s). He was a ballpark where we could measure our generations and aspirations. He was just a lot more than cricket  connect and memories.

Drunkenmunk wrote:

crimson king wrote:He deserved it, especially since Lata Mangeshkar got it (but not Mohd Rafi).  Lata opposed a badly needed South Mumbai flyover in the noughties as it would 'spoil her voice'.  What voice? So if it can be given to such a selfish person as her, it can be given to any achiever.  But they should also give a posthumous award to Dhyan Chand and confer it to some of the other sporting greats like Milkha Singh, Anand, Ramanathan Krishnan.  It is very very disappointing that this country does not appreciate the worth of Milkha Singh's achievements...as if coming fourth in an Olympic athletic event is child's play.

Totally second this. Bharat Ratna is a joke being given to Lata kooda absolutely ok. Sachin certainly deserved it, just for the impact he's had on India, its economy (there are studies about Sensex doing well when he did well in the 90s). He was a ballpark where we could measure our generations and aspirations. He was just a lot more than cricket  connect and memories.

Stepping aside BR - which is a no value award from central govt., I want to seriously ask some questions on sachin craze. I was a part of this mania in the early and mid 90s.
However after distancing myself from following vehmently this most time wasting sport, I have managed to question myself about this addiction to cricket.
1) from 90s this sport/activity lost its oldworldly charm and became a sponsor triggered TRP sucking megaserial of the highest order. Early on batsmen played the ball on the merits and the conditions were loaded evenly.
 In those times batting was not this record shattering dream, but a real mental challenge. The feat of sunny, patil and GRV against the fearful west indies, Aussie and English bowlers or against the masterful spinners of pakistan is an achievement beyond the mere win/loss runs scored stats. Their defiance had the real spirit of sport in them.
2) From 90s a player with maximum endorsement has always been persisted in the team, whether he is out of form or in poor physical shape. If an endorsed player was hitting a rough patch, cricket board ensured that a zimbabwe or new zealand home tour was arranged quickly. Tours with teams like Australia or West Indies were shortened to 3 match or at the best 4 match series. Even this farewell series of SRT which had all the appeal of a powerstar srinivasan starrer was arranged so that it could be sold at a higher price - when did eden gardens or wankhede have such an attendance for a test match with a dodo team?
3) Rules were changed to restrict fast bowlers and spinners - one bouncer rule in an era of solid metal helmets and covered pitches never made sense to me till date - No ball rules were made sufficiently stricter to make unorthodox bowlers life a nigtmare.
4) Home umpiring went to such a standard so that home team star bowler had to simply ask 'Howz' while the visiting team bowler had to beg plead and cajole the umpire.
5) While all other international teams with lesser endorsement pressure followed 'rotation policy' and players taking time off to enjoy life, Indian cricket team's endorsement models had no such luxury. When Brian Lara went on a sabbatical to spend time with his family, Indian media criticized him of being selfish while they applauded SRT's comments that he hardly spent time with his two grown up kids. Now what is he gonna do take his children for a play date?

The craze was setup among millions of Indian fans and milked to the last drop by BCCI and endorsing corporates. It is sad that millions spent million hours watching the telecast and repeat telecast neglecting their education, family and profession to indulge in this addiction. SRT in my opinion is just a product model who has been unfairly built up as the greatest ever batsmen when the environment has been 90% adjusted to result in continued endorsement vis-a-vis spot in the team so that records could lead up to a 200th test match which could be sold at a fairly heavy price by his master, the Board of Cricket Corruption in India.

Your arguments concentrate on the ODI side of things.  That may be what got SRT all those million dollar endorsements and made him a public idol.  But these changes didn't reflect on Test cricket and his records in Tests speak for themselves. He has scored more hundreds away than at home and his average abroad too is better.  In fact, there is no country where Tendulkar does not average at least 40 or more and no country, barring Zimbabwe, where he has not scored a century and he only played 4 matches there given their exclusion from cricket in the mid noughties.  

And as for the myth that batting got easier in the 90s -  on the contrary it got tougher.  The global batting average across teams in the 90s was 29.21 - in the 60s it was 30.91, in the 70s it was 30.32, in the 80s it was 30.69.  Helmets were already in vogue in the 80s.  Nevertheless the argument that helmets made a batsman's life easier discounts the impact of reverse swing, especially reverse swinging yorkers. At least four teams had one or two all time great pace bowlers in their ranks - West Indies (Ambrose and Walsh), Pakistan (Wasim and Waqar), Australia (Glen Mcgrath) and South Africa (Donald and Pollock).  Spin also reached its zenith in the 90s with at least four if not five all time greats operating in the same era - Warne, Murali, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed.  

Batting got easier in the noughties with the global batting average shooting to 32.69.  But it was ironically in this period that the rest of the field - Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara - caught up with Tendulkar.  From mid 90s to early noughties, he was easily the best batsman from his generation.  So his claim to legendary status is not unjustified.

Sachin is THE best batsman I have watched. But there were times when he had a rough patch and he could have justifiably been dropped, except that they probably didn't have a replacement - for example there was a long stretch leading up to the 2003 world cup when his performance really dipped in both ODIs and tests. If I remember correctly, Pedro Collins had his number in the WI test series and he didn't click in the NZ tour as well. There were other series too, but I can't recall them now. But yes, they didn't have any replacements and he can't be criticised for that.

What I have found to be nauseating, though, is the media attention around him the last few months and this so-called farewell series against a dodo team as Jaiganesh put it. The media has helped in creating an image of the individual being bigger than the sport (that too a team sport). Besides, the real point of the series as Jaiganesh observed is just to boost TRP and ticket sales. We are the laughing stock of the rest of the cricketing world for being gullible, sentimental fools and we thoroughly deserve it.

Farewell series was a disgrace, a joke of an end to his career.

crimson king wrote:Your arguments concentrate on the ODI side of things.  That may be what got SRT all those million dollar endorsements and made him a public idol.  But these changes didn't reflect on Test cricket and his records in Tests speak for themselves. He has scored more hundreds away than at home and his average abroad too is better.  In fact, there is no country where Tendulkar does not average at least 40 or more and no country, barring Zimbabwe, where he has not scored a century and he only played 4 matches there given their exclusion from cricket in the mid noughties.  

And as for the myth that batting got easier in the 90s -  on the contrary it got tougher.  The global batting average across teams in the 90s was 29.21 - in the 60s it was 30.91, in the 70s it was 30.32, in the 80s it was 30.69.  Helmets were already in vogue in the 80s.  Nevertheless the argument that helmets made a batsman's life easier discounts the impact of reverse swing, especially reverse swinging yorkers. At least four teams had one or two all time great pace bowlers in their ranks - West Indies (Ambrose and Walsh), Pakistan (Wasim and Waqar), Australia (Glen Mcgrath) and South Africa (Donald and Pollock).  Spin also reached its zenith in the 90s with at least four if not five all time greats operating in the same era - Warne, Murali, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed.  

Batting got easier in the noughties with the global batting average shooting to 32.69.  But it was ironically in this period that the rest of the field - Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara - caught up with Tendulkar.  From mid 90s to early noughties, he was easily the best batsman from his generation.  So his claim to legendary status is not unjustified.

Absolutely. A high school friend of mine and a sports journalist did a couple of studies. 1: compare the test careers of SRT, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and Lara with 3rd, 4th innings comparisons removing performances against Zimbabwe and Bangaldesh and the overall career records. Conclusion: SRT's test record is no way inferior to the other 4. In fact, it is better in some aspects (4th innings record drops for all 5 and Sachin is the best with Ponting and in the 3rd innings, he is THE GOAT). Study: http://setpiecegoal.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/a-look-into-the-test-careers-of-lara-tendulkar-dravid-ponting-and-kallis/

2: Does the "Sachin plays for himself as he nears a century in ODIs" and "Sachin's ODI tons lead to losses for India" theories hold water? Answer: No. Study: http://setpiecegoal.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/debunking-the-sachin-myth/

Both the myths bunked, it becomes apparent that with his pure technique, matches won and the runs scored with the incredible longevity, he is most certainly the Greatest cricketer of our times. That added with the positive impact he's had over a nation over a decade makes a definite case for the award.

Yes, Anand, Dhyan Chand, Jeev Milkha Singh are possibly equally great/greater sportspersons in their arenas and may deserve the award too. But none has had the impact on an Indian psyche and economy the way Sachin has had over the last 2 decades. Also, Sachin in no way does not deserve the award either.

Also, the stats do come with their limitations. For instance, a 155* in a turning Chennai track vs Warne with the pressure of a 1st innings deficit or a ton in Australia against Waugh's Aussies (both in the 90s) as the rest crumble around you certainly ranks higher than say a Kohli ton against the same Aussies today. But even with these inherent limitations, the above studies debunk all the sound around SRT that tries to rubbish his place in the pantheon.

Drunkenmunk wrote:

crimson king wrote:Your arguments concentrate on the ODI side of things.  That may be what got SRT all those million dollar endorsements and made him a public idol.  But these changes didn't reflect on Test cricket and his records in Tests speak for themselves. He has scored more hundreds away than at home and his average abroad too is better.  In fact, there is no country where Tendulkar does not average at least 40 or more and no country, barring Zimbabwe, where he has not scored a century and he only played 4 matches there given their exclusion from cricket in the mid noughties.  

And as for the myth that batting got easier in the 90s -  on the contrary it got tougher.  The global batting average across teams in the 90s was 29.21 - in the 60s it was 30.91, in the 70s it was 30.32, in the 80s it was 30.69.  Helmets were already in vogue in the 80s.  Nevertheless the argument that helmets made a batsman's life easier discounts the impact of reverse swing, especially reverse swinging yorkers. At least four teams had one or two all time great pace bowlers in their ranks - West Indies (Ambrose and Walsh), Pakistan (Wasim and Waqar), Australia (Glen Mcgrath) and South Africa (Donald and Pollock).  Spin also reached its zenith in the 90s with at least four if not five all time greats operating in the same era - Warne, Murali, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed.  

Batting got easier in the noughties with the global batting average shooting to 32.69.  But it was ironically in this period that the rest of the field - Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara - caught up with Tendulkar.  From mid 90s to early noughties, he was easily the best batsman from his generation.  So his claim to legendary status is not unjustified.

Absolutely. A high school friend of mine and a sports journalist did a couple of studies. 1: compare the test careers of SRT, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and Lara with 3rd, 4th innings comparisons removing performances against Zimbabwe and Bangaldesh and the overall career records. Conclusion: SRT's test record is no way inferior to the other 4. In fact, it is better in some aspects (4th innings record drops for all 5 and Sachin is the best with Ponting and in the 3rd innings, he is THE GOAT). Study: http://setpiecegoal.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/a-look-into-the-test-careers-of-lara-tendulkar-dravid-ponting-and-kallis/

2: Does the "Sachin plays for himself as he nears a century in ODIs" and "Sachin's ODI tons lead to losses for India" theories hold water? Answer: No. Study: http://setpiecegoal.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/debunking-the-sachin-myth/

Both the myths bunked, it becomes apparent that with his pure technique, matches won and the runs scored with the incredible longevity, he is most certainly the Greatest cricketer of our times. That added with the positive impact he's had over a nation over a decade makes a definite case for the award.

Yes, Anand, Dhyan Chand, Jeev Milkha Singh are possibly equally great/greater sportspersons in their arenas and may deserve the award too. But none has had the impact on an Indian psyche and economy the way Sachin has had over the last 2 decades. Also, Sachin in no way does not deserve the award either.

I wish you leave out economy out of the discussion - this is similar to saying Aishwarya Rai deserved Ratna because she made indians look fairer and boosted marketing related jobs in beauty care industry in India.
As far as Indian Psyche is concerned, lesser said about this idiotic Indian psyche.
Lets just discuss talent and contribution to a private corporate body's team sport.
There is no denying his talent and contribution. He is the best BCCI batsman who played international cricket since 1992.
Now lets get back to the question of how supported he was compared to any other player. He scored his first (test) century after 70 innings.
Did any other player receive this support? No. So my point is he was supported by a force inside BCCI greater than anything we have seen.
Without that force he would definitely have been a good player, most probably, but to the status of "Only good batsman of the 90s and noughties" 
I beg to differ. It is our providence that he truly became the genius that he was projected as by this 'force'. For every sachin, there has been countless 
Amarjit Kaypees, Amol Mazumdars, Sridharan Sharaths, Senthilkumars who could have easily made into the BCCI playing 11. Again the irony is, they would have been tossed aside after just one tour.
If we are discussing the Sachin phenomenon - there is a pinch of salt to stoke your reality area in your taste buds.
Rahul Dravid and SC Ganguly and later on Laxman were lucky that there was a match fixing scandal that cleaned up some space for them that got rid of some 
endorsed players like Azhar and Jadeja. Just rewind back to Laxman and Dravid - how many tours they were forced to pad up as openers just because "the middle order" was packed - unchangeable.
Another player we have to remember is that extremely unlucky Praveen Amre who scored century in zimbabwe while other indian players flopped (including manjrekar and tendulkar).
He went on to score one memorable century in the ODIs. He was tossed aside by BCCI inspite of being the best fielder and the best player of pull and hook shots in the bouncy
tracks of South Africa. He settled down in SA after the clubs there recognised his talent. 
Many such tragic stories dot the history of BCCI through 90s and 00s while this idiotic notion of "packed" middle order was being persisted with by BCCI.

Jaiganesh, 

Quite thought provoking. I never really pondered about the endorsement aspect very seriously. And frankly I have barely even heard of any of those could-have-beens you mentioned.  But the economics argument, though not without merit, is potentially dangerous and can be applied to all of Bolly, Kolly, Tolly etc. But BR (all three, as used in this forum context  ) has become quite pointless anyway, so I don't care. We are experts in making a farce of everything.

On a related note, I don't know if you guys are following the chess championship - if not, I have been watching almost all games live, following a few chess forums and reading lots of match analysis and reports and you have no idea what a source of total bemusement and amusement Jaya's self promotion during the opening ceremony is to many foreign reporters. On top of that, putting up her photo in the playing hall, trolling the whole city with posters for the event which have her photo and not the players and with captions like 'you are the undefeated king' etc are totally bizarre and wtf-inducing for the Norwegian and European press in general covering the event. And we wonder why the world laughs at us...

Also, if there is one truly global sports icon we have, it is Anand. What he has achieved is simply incredible. He came up at a time when the Soviet school of chess dominated to such an extent that it was considered virtually impossible for a non-Russian speaking person to break through at that level. He is perhaps the most natural chess talent ever in the opinion of several international grandmasters and even won the dour Soviets over with his raw talent, lightning speed of calculation and tactical genius. I have even read reports that he is a darling of the Russian intelligentsia and he has truly made a much greater impact on Indian chess than any sportsman has for his sport in the country, relatively speaking, of course. India now has among the most impressive numbers of grandmasters (Anand was the first) and international masters in the world and the numbers are still growing - and all that is directly attributable to Vishy Anand and no one but him.

fring151 wrote: But BR (all three, as used in this forum context  ) has become quite pointless anyway, so I don't care. We are experts in making a farce of everything.

Because there's a lot of media attention on BR, I checked the wiki page of BR for the complete list of recipients and when they got it...

Though one won't question the eligibility of Nehruji for BR (after all he is called "Asiya jOthi" why not jewel of Bharath), the timing of it appears funny - especially because the article says PM recommends to the President as to who should get it.

wiki wrote:
The recommendations for an award of the "Bharat Ratna" are made by the Prime Minister of India to the President of India; a maximum of three awards may be made in a given year.

Nehruji was PM when he got it in 1955

In other words, he recommended the award to himself

That way, it comes as no surprise that Indiraji too recommended to herself in 1971, when she was the PM.

I wonder what people will say today if singam recommends his own name to the award, being the architect of India's globalization / liberalization / modern economy etc

Don't take the above as anything against Sachin - as a former cricket fan (and a current "don't care" fellow), I'm happy a cricketer got this award

Also, I'm surprised that Grandmaster Anand is not in the list of recipients of BR, even though sports had been included for the honor a couple of years back.

I totally agree with fring151 on the achievements of Anand (though I don't nowadays follow the chess games as much as I used to do when I daily read indhu paper chudachchuda in the morning all those years)...