Don Bradman vs Sachin and others. Why Bradman was the greatest and the others don’t come close.

 

Now that Sachin Tendulkar has come to the end of his playing days we can start to ask what his place in history is. Many make the jump to say that he is the greatest batsman of the modern era and perhaps the greatest batsman that has ever lived. But I strongly disagree, and I have reasons for it. Do I think Sachin is the greatest batsman of all time, the answer is definitely not. Do I think he was the greatest batsman of his era, then I would say yes, but I would be hesitant to say that, because what is our definition of a great batsman in the first place. There are many ways to define a great batsman for example, how many runs does he score, how quickly does he score his runs, how efficient is his batting with regard to the target score, what is his average, how many runs has he scored in his career, how many times as he been man of the match, how entertaining is he. In many of these categories of batting sachin surely ranks at the top of most of them. But does that automatically make him the best batsman of his era. Perhaps some of these categories are more important than others, but which ones. I can layout my opinion on which of these categories sachin is on top, and some of these will be self evident and factually concurrent. But which categories do I choose to give more importance to, which categories best define the characteristics of a great batsman.

 

I think the category that most defines a great batsman is scoring efficiency. That would be how many runs does he score with regards to the target score. And that tends to include some of the other categories if not all. The reason I feel that scoring efficiency is most important is that, it includes all other categories. The only category it doesn’t include is the total runs scored in ones career. Because scoring efficiency is measured match by match whereas total runs scored is spreadout throughout a career. In this regard sachin is far and beyond every one else and can be counted as the undisputed king of batting. But does that necessarily make him the greatest batsman of all time or of his era.

Here is where I make my second point.

 

One of the characteristics I believe of a great batsman is longevity, and that perhaps might be the defining characteristic of a great batsman. Now ofcourse what longevity is will vary depending on what one considers longevity. The question remains how long anyone stays at the top of his or her game. Longevity is closely related to amount of runs scored throughout ones career, but they are not necessarily the same. Longevity tends to include all the other definitions of what a great batsman is, but runs scored does not although there is a correlation between runs scored and the other categories. For example someone who has a high average and scores quickly at a high efficiency may have scored many runs in their career. And Infact it is likely that they have. But it is possible that someone who hasn’t scored that many runs has a high average and scores quickly and efficiently. And it is possible that some one who has a high average and scores quickly and has a high efficiency and does not have many runs scored throughout their career , but yet has longevity. And the vice versa is also true that someone who has a high number of runs scored throughout their career and has a high average and scores quickly and has a high efficiency in all three categories relatively speaking, but yet doesn’t have longevity.

Now let me get back to the categories of a great batsman once again. If we look at the categories we can see that sachin is by far number 1 in runs scored and runs scored throughout his career. Now another point I wanted to make was that scoring efficiency is not just related to the target score when chasing runs, but also has to do with what a good score would be in order to win a match when batting first. But scoring efficiency doesn’t stop there. It also includes how quickly one scores runs and how often one scores runs when a certain score needs to be reached a priori to knowing what that score would be. And that ofcourse means knowing how much would be needed in order to achieve the end result which is either reaching the target score that the opponent has set or reaching a score that the opponent cannot reach. And here lies the key, reaching a score that the opponent cannot reach. There are very few batsmen that I could put in these two categories of reaching a target score and reaching a score that the opponent cannot reach and neither category includes Sachin Tendulkar. The batsmen that I would put in these two categories include Virender Sehwag, Sanath Jayasuriya, MS Dhoni and Michael Bevan.

 

Sachin Tendulkar played cricket for the records, he never played for winning the match, he never played for scoring efficieny. All he ever cared about was his own records. And that would be fine if cricket was an individual sport. If batting itself was an individual sport then that would be fine too. But It is not, we cannot remove batting from its consequences, which is winning or losing a match. Therefore a player’s performance should and always be tied to the actual result, which is did the performance help or hinder the teams actual ability to win. And in terms of greatness, how much did the performance help or hinder the teams actual ability to win.

 

Longevity doesn’t mean playing forever. Longevity means being able to perform at your highest level for a significant period of time and Bradman did that, he was as good a cricketer when he started as when he finished.

 

Movie Critic.

 

The Great Gatsby.

 

There seems to be a consensus within the movie of the suspension of the understanding of who Gatsby is. The first few minutes has you wondering if you will  see Gatsby at all until perhaps the very end where he will appear and disappoint us all. But Gatsby appears when you least expect him, right after the first few minutes. This suspension leads to a kind of melancholia as one is waiting and wishing for the protagonist to show himself, not know whether he will or he won’t. When the protagonist finally does show up on the screen one is left with awe and wonder at the fact that he appeared at all, and one is relieved that the story can go on.

 

There is a sense of the party ethic in the 20^th century ballroom dancehall format. There is concert pianist playing Bethovhen symphonies shadowed by the sense of the 21^st century disc jockey. Gatsby is young and fit, quite contrary to the opinion of some within the movie and without the movie that he is Old and fat. He lives in a palace and he is oxford educated, and has an acute sense of hearing, perhaps psychic even, but undeveloped, merely superficial.

 

The movie has an interesting mix of musical styles in the form of modern operatic theatre in such varieties in the manner of Florence and the Machine. To the downright early 2000s contemporary in the form of Jay Z, shouting his mantra H to the Izzo. Ofcourse this all blends nicely to the form of the movie which takes on a Moulin rougeske style longing for the future in a world that exists in the past, and rooted in the present.

 

Perhaps the most telling scene of the state of the protagonist and his sidekick come at a gather of prominent figures in city of which they live. Here we see the commissioner and a senator as well as the most gripping performance by an Indian movie icon in Amitabh Bachan. For all of bollywoods terrible acting jobs, here Amitabh, the godfather of Indian cinema holds his own in a world he cannot possible understand due to its complexity. But his performance holds gravitas and takes the viewer on a journey of what its like to outperform seasoned veteran actors in your first real test as an actor.

 

In darkness I have wept for the bond of life I accept this lonely paradise.

 

Rohan Ravi.

 

 Musical Score 3.5/5

Acting 4/5

 
Entertainment Value 5/5

Screenplay 3.5/5

Overall 4.5/5