When a GOD fell….

His off stump was uprooted and he fell in heavy defeat. That’s the impression I got when I saw Tendulkar’s wicket fall in the last Test match against Pakistan. It was as if his right calf had been cut off and he fell on his knee. As he trudged back to pavilion with the shock of facing a class bowler in the form of Muhammad Asif, Tendulkar must have realized his time is up. His nod of acknowledgement towards the bowler showed that he had been beaten by the best.

If the players are like products with heavy investment made by their cricket boards, Tendulkar has become one big faulty product, who was a best seller. This product needs to be sent back to the factory for disassembly and used as spare parts (i.e Tendulkar should be useful as a batting coach for India), or he should simply move to Italy and change engine oil in Ferrari cars at the Ferrari service centre.

I hope that my Indian friends learn a lesson of not idolizing human beings, as life is too uncertain and cruel. This also applies to future Gods in the form of Sehwag or Dhoni.

Good luck to India.

[Amar would like to add:
Akbar bhai, I agree with you wholly on the dangers of making gods out of mortals. However, being a pedant, may I humbly differ on the specifics of the dismissal.

Tendulkar got out simply because the delivery stayed very low after pitching. The bounce was different from the preceding deliveries - it was a random occurence. After all, Asif banged it in short, but the ball went BELOW tendulkar's bat. The ball's trajectory had nothing to do with the talents of Asif, or the ageing of Tendulkar - it was the unevenness of a pitch on the fourth day. Tendulkar's day may have gone, Asif's may be arriving, but Tendulkar's dismissal is evidence of neither]


[Akbar's Rebuttal:
Amar pai...you cannot deny the expressions of Endulkar after that wicket. Even or uneven..such technicalities matter not when the bowler had bowled and the batsman has missed. The game, the players and their abilities are generally well above the pitch condition barring bad weather. It is their ability to manipulate the current conditions to play to their advantage. There is no such thing as random. It was Asif's talent which made use of the uneven bounce if there was any to take the wicket. Full credit to Asif.

As far as Endulkar's end is concerned, I know you have a bet on Anthony regarding his career, hence such emotional crap is expected from you. Worry not, you still have to send me the two books you lost on Pak-India series bet ;)]

[Amar: 1. Tendulkar was unhappy he was out. His wife says he is unhappy to lose at cards to her. It doesn't mean that his career is over, or that Asif bowled a great ball.

2. You are right that once a batsman is out, they are out, and technicalities don't matter. Though that wasn't what I heard the day Kumble took 10 wickets in an innings.

3. However, these technicalities do matter when you are attempting to make conclusions about the future of the bowler and batsman. You are not trying to say Tendulkar was out, you are saying his dismissal signifies his end, it heralds the coming of Asif. So you have to look at the matter of dismissal, after all that is your justification for your conclusions. Unless you would like us to arrive at conclusions without considering supporting evidence, and make your judgment a matter of faith.

4.The game, the players and their abilities are generally well above the pitch condition barring bad weather. Don't understand what you mean.

5. There's no such thing as random. So you are saying everything is pre-ordained? Then why the struggle of existence?

6. It is unclear how Asif could have known what the ball would do pitching where it did. Plenty of other balls were delivered short, most continued through on normal bounce. If Asif could predict and control the pitching and bounce of his delivery the way you suggest, not only would he be unique in the history of the game, you would have to question his commitment to the team as to why he doesn't do it more often!

7. I think you are jumping to conclusions based on faulty/non-existent evidence. I know the president of the US does it, but I really do expect higher standards from you.