SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Gavaskar did not have any problems with Venkat as such it was the captaincy.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sobers rates Gavaskar as the greatest batsman
- Thread starter Ilovecric
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It's an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
A lot has ben written about Gavaskar's batting in that inaugural world cup match. This article published in cricinfo a few years ago recalls some of the reactions during and after the match.
Martin Williamson
March 3, 2007
One-day cricket is such an established part of the game now that it is sometimes easy to forget that it is a relatively new concept. The first domestic tournament was launched in 1963, and the first limited-overs international followed eight years later, almost by accident after a Test match was rained off . The inaugural World Cup came in 1975 (two years after the ladies' version, but that's another story). The first match in that competition produced one of the most controversial one-day innings of all time.
In the opening round of games, on June 7, 1975, England, the hosts, were drawn to play India at Lord's. The format of the event - there were two groups of four countries - meant that a defeat would leave the losers struggling to progress.
The scene in London was perfect, with high temperatures and glorious sunshine, conditions which continued throughout the two-week tournament and on through the rest of the summer. It had, however, been a near-run thing. Five days before the start, the weather was so grim that snow stopped play at Buxton in Derbyshire. Demand for tickets wasn't as it would be now - this was, after all, a relatively new idea - but, nevertheless, Lord's two-thirds full.
The first half of the game went according to plan. England batted and piled up 334 for 4 in 60 overs, at the time the highest total in one-day cricket. Dennis Amiss led the way with 137 (an innings of "calm, simple movements," according to Tony Lewis) and was well supported by a solid 68 from Keith Fletcher. Although England wobbled mid-innings, losing three wickets for 15, the respite was brief. As the Indian bowlers tired in the heat, a 30-ball 50 from Chris Old bludgeoned the match out of their reach.
The competition rules stated that if a group was tied, run-rate would be the deciding factor. So, even if India lost, the more runs they scored, the better the chance of reaching the semi-finals.
Such considerations or tactics were, however, sadly lost on Sunil Gavaskar, who opened the innings. From the off, it was apparent that he was adopting a strategy known only to himself. At first, his snail-like batting was put down to a desire to see off the new ball. But when he continued his go-slow, frustration among the crowd grew.
India's supporters voiced their desperation, and as the innings drew towards its turgid conclusion a few even ran to the middle to remonstrate with Gavaskar. "Dejected Indians were pathetically pleading with him to die fighting," reported The Cricketer. "Their flags hung limp in their hands. It was a perverse moment of self-inflicted shame." On their balcony in the pavilion, Gavaskar's team-mates made no secret of their frustration.
In The Times John Woodock wrote: "From the Mound stand, where the police were kept as busy removing rowdies as if it were the Hill at Sydney, anyone who could break the cordon came to plead with the Indian batsmen to play the game properly. But it was no use.
"To understand why India, and especially Gavaskar, batted as they did, It is probably necessary to remember what happened when they last played at Lord's. They were bowled out then for 42. If they could not win on Saturday, as they decided they could not after England's innings, then every effort had to be concentrated on averting another collapse."
By the end of the innings, Gavaskar had crawled to 36 not out off 174 balls with just one four; India had scored 132 for 3 and had lost by 202 runs.
The motive behind the innings remain unclear. In a post-match statement, GS Ramchand, India's manager, said that Gavaskar had considered the England score unobtainable and so had taken practice. It was an excuse, but not one that anyone believed. "I do not agree with his tactics," Ramchand concluded, "but he will not be disciplined."
Rumours abounded, the most popular being that Gavaskar was unhappy with the team selection, especially the decision to ditch the team's reliance on spinners (who had been mauled in England the previous summer) in favour of seamers; others argued that he was annoyed that Srinivas Venkataraghavan was made captain. "His cussedness could quite easily have been formed before the match by matters of selection, his hotel bedroom or even the nightly meal allowance," wrote Lewis. "Whatever the motives were he had no right to force them on the sponsors who have put £100,000 into cricket this summer, or on the 16,274 spectators who paid £19,000 to watch."
Ted Dexter, at the time commentating for the BBC, argued that Gavaskar should have been pulled from the field by his captain. "Nothing short of a vote of censure by the ICC would have satisfied me if I had paid good money through the turnstiles only to be short-changed by such a performance," he fumed. But match referees were not introduced for almost another two decades and the ICC at that time did not get involved in such matters.
And what was Gavaskar's explanation? At the time, he said nothing. Years later, he admitted that it was the worst innings of his life and claimed he was out of form. "There were occasions I felt like moving away from the stumps so I would be bowled," he said. "This was the only way to get away from the mental agony from which I was suffering. I couldn't force the pace and I couldn't get out. Towards the end I was playing mechanically."
He also revealed that he had actually been caught behind off the second ball of the innings, and admitted he wished he had walked. "I keep tossing and turning around about it now. "I asked myself, 'Why the hell did I not walk the second ball?. I was caught behind and would have been out for zero. But nobody appealed. I had flashed outside the off stump ... it was such just such a faint nick that nobody appealed. The bowler went 'ah' and the keeper, Alan Knott, who was standing some way back, did the same. There was no real appeal, no proper 'how's that?'. That little moment of hesitation got me so much flak all these years."
On the team's return home he was slammed by the board in response to the manager's report which claimed that Gavaskar had been "aloof" and had had a detrimental effect on the younger players. But no official reprimand was issued and the matter quietly dropped.
There are some interesting bits here which raise some very pertinent questions.
Now the questions...
To say that this was all about the captaincy is actually giving Gavaskar a lifeline for, more than once, there have been voices raised about much murkier reasons for what happened with the names of Gavaskar and his uncle (a former Indian cricketer bandied about). Of course, these are and will remain unsubstantiated rumours but it is sad that the Indian board and all concerned decided that hushing up the matter is the best way to handle it.
This has been the bane of sub-continental cricket for far too long and continues till this day.
Gavaskar's one-day bore
Martin Williamson
March 3, 2007
One-day cricket is such an established part of the game now that it is sometimes easy to forget that it is a relatively new concept. The first domestic tournament was launched in 1963, and the first limited-overs international followed eight years later, almost by accident after a Test match was rained off . The inaugural World Cup came in 1975 (two years after the ladies' version, but that's another story). The first match in that competition produced one of the most controversial one-day innings of all time.
In the opening round of games, on June 7, 1975, England, the hosts, were drawn to play India at Lord's. The format of the event - there were two groups of four countries - meant that a defeat would leave the losers struggling to progress.
The scene in London was perfect, with high temperatures and glorious sunshine, conditions which continued throughout the two-week tournament and on through the rest of the summer. It had, however, been a near-run thing. Five days before the start, the weather was so grim that snow stopped play at Buxton in Derbyshire. Demand for tickets wasn't as it would be now - this was, after all, a relatively new idea - but, nevertheless, Lord's two-thirds full.
The first half of the game went according to plan. England batted and piled up 334 for 4 in 60 overs, at the time the highest total in one-day cricket. Dennis Amiss led the way with 137 (an innings of "calm, simple movements," according to Tony Lewis) and was well supported by a solid 68 from Keith Fletcher. Although England wobbled mid-innings, losing three wickets for 15, the respite was brief. As the Indian bowlers tired in the heat, a 30-ball 50 from Chris Old bludgeoned the match out of their reach.
The competition rules stated that if a group was tied, run-rate would be the deciding factor. So, even if India lost, the more runs they scored, the better the chance of reaching the semi-finals.
Such considerations or tactics were, however, sadly lost on Sunil Gavaskar, who opened the innings. From the off, it was apparent that he was adopting a strategy known only to himself. At first, his snail-like batting was put down to a desire to see off the new ball. But when he continued his go-slow, frustration among the crowd grew.
India's supporters voiced their desperation, and as the innings drew towards its turgid conclusion a few even ran to the middle to remonstrate with Gavaskar. "Dejected Indians were pathetically pleading with him to die fighting," reported The Cricketer. "Their flags hung limp in their hands. It was a perverse moment of self-inflicted shame." On their balcony in the pavilion, Gavaskar's team-mates made no secret of their frustration.
In The Times John Woodock wrote: "From the Mound stand, where the police were kept as busy removing rowdies as if it were the Hill at Sydney, anyone who could break the cordon came to plead with the Indian batsmen to play the game properly. But it was no use.
"To understand why India, and especially Gavaskar, batted as they did, It is probably necessary to remember what happened when they last played at Lord's. They were bowled out then for 42. If they could not win on Saturday, as they decided they could not after England's innings, then every effort had to be concentrated on averting another collapse."
By the end of the innings, Gavaskar had crawled to 36 not out off 174 balls with just one four; India had scored 132 for 3 and had lost by 202 runs.
The motive behind the innings remain unclear. In a post-match statement, GS Ramchand, India's manager, said that Gavaskar had considered the England score unobtainable and so had taken practice. It was an excuse, but not one that anyone believed. "I do not agree with his tactics," Ramchand concluded, "but he will not be disciplined."
Rumours abounded, the most popular being that Gavaskar was unhappy with the team selection, especially the decision to ditch the team's reliance on spinners (who had been mauled in England the previous summer) in favour of seamers; others argued that he was annoyed that Srinivas Venkataraghavan was made captain. "His cussedness could quite easily have been formed before the match by matters of selection, his hotel bedroom or even the nightly meal allowance," wrote Lewis. "Whatever the motives were he had no right to force them on the sponsors who have put £100,000 into cricket this summer, or on the 16,274 spectators who paid £19,000 to watch."
Ted Dexter, at the time commentating for the BBC, argued that Gavaskar should have been pulled from the field by his captain. "Nothing short of a vote of censure by the ICC would have satisfied me if I had paid good money through the turnstiles only to be short-changed by such a performance," he fumed. But match referees were not introduced for almost another two decades and the ICC at that time did not get involved in such matters.
And what was Gavaskar's explanation? At the time, he said nothing. Years later, he admitted that it was the worst innings of his life and claimed he was out of form. "There were occasions I felt like moving away from the stumps so I would be bowled," he said. "This was the only way to get away from the mental agony from which I was suffering. I couldn't force the pace and I couldn't get out. Towards the end I was playing mechanically."
He also revealed that he had actually been caught behind off the second ball of the innings, and admitted he wished he had walked. "I keep tossing and turning around about it now. "I asked myself, 'Why the hell did I not walk the second ball?. I was caught behind and would have been out for zero. But nobody appealed. I had flashed outside the off stump ... it was such just such a faint nick that nobody appealed. The bowler went 'ah' and the keeper, Alan Knott, who was standing some way back, did the same. There was no real appeal, no proper 'how's that?'. That little moment of hesitation got me so much flak all these years."
On the team's return home he was slammed by the board in response to the manager's report which claimed that Gavaskar had been "aloof" and had had a detrimental effect on the younger players. But no official reprimand was issued and the matter quietly dropped.
There are some interesting bits here which raise some very pertinent questions.
1. The Indian supporters watching the match pleaded with Gavaskar "at the ground" repeatedly breaking the security cordon to go to him at the wicket and ask him to speed up.
2. The manager, a former Indian captain made the lame excuse about the total being too much and Gavaskar, therefore, deciding to take practice.
3. The Indian players in the balcony clearly showing their frustration.
4. Gavaskar refusing to talk about it, let alone explain what happened for years after the incident.
2. The manager, a former Indian captain made the lame excuse about the total being too much and Gavaskar, therefore, deciding to take practice.
3. The Indian players in the balcony clearly showing their frustration.
4. Gavaskar refusing to talk about it, let alone explain what happened for years after the incident.
Now the questions...
1. Where does that leave the Indian captain Venkatraghvan?
2. What was he doing all this time?
3. How come when the spectators were willing to break the security cordon to ask Gavaskar to speed up the captain made no effort to send in a messenger with gloves. drinks whatever for conveying the same message?
4. How come while one has heard from all and sundry on this subject one hasn't heard what Venkat has to say?
2. What was he doing all this time?
3. How come when the spectators were willing to break the security cordon to ask Gavaskar to speed up the captain made no effort to send in a messenger with gloves. drinks whatever for conveying the same message?
4. How come while one has heard from all and sundry on this subject one hasn't heard what Venkat has to say?
Maybe he did not send a messenger because he knew it was going to be of no use.
5. Then again why was it all hushed up afterwards? How come no disciplinary action was taken against Gavaskar? In fact he was made the Indian Test captain just six months later.
5. Then again why was it all hushed up afterwards? How come no disciplinary action was taken against Gavaskar? In fact he was made the Indian Test captain just six months later.
To say that this was all about the captaincy is actually giving Gavaskar a lifeline for, more than once, there have been voices raised about much murkier reasons for what happened with the names of Gavaskar and his uncle (a former Indian cricketer bandied about). Of course, these are and will remain unsubstantiated rumours but it is sad that the Indian board and all concerned decided that hushing up the matter is the best way to handle it.
This has been the bane of sub-continental cricket for far too long and continues till this day.
Last edited:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
SJS, just letting you know that I think with regards to copyright, you should be sourcing those articles where possible. Linking to a website, or mentioning the publication that they came from. 
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I normally do but I think crossing 60 does have its effectsSJS, just letting you know that I think with regards to copyright, you should be sourcing those articles where possible. Linking to a website, or mentioning the publication that they came from.
Done. Thanks.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
I'm sorry, but that's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. You can't bat for 180 odd delieveries against International class bowling, trying to throw your wicket away and not succeed in getting out. Worse excuse ever.Gavaskar prefers to talk of that innings in a very odd manner. He maintains that he tried his best to score faster but it just did not seem to work. Somehow all his stroke play was 'paralysed' (not his word). He also claims that he even tried to throw away his wicket but even that did not work !!
read in that what you want
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Couldn't agree more
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
That's kind of SJS's point.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That was ind33d precisely what I meant. Sobers is a very modest person, and sometimes that means he is not capable of offering an accurate assessment of players in relation to himself.I think he might mean he's too modest about himself, though I can't be sure
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
May or may not be true, but is pretty irrelevant when considering Gavaskar as the two's careers overlapped by no more than a couple of years.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
But he wasn't giving an assessment in relation to himself unless he thinks his name is Sachin Tendulkar.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
But that's what you think. Are you suggesting that Sobers should express what you think and if he doesn't he is just being too modest ?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I think it's always a shame when modesty gets in the way of an accurate assessment. Admittedly, someone being very un-modest (like Javed Miandad for instance) is often quite cringeworthy, but in some respects it's still better than, well, this.
I'd say the number of people who think Gavaskar was better than Sobers would probably be very small in number, BTW - considering Sobers > Gavaskar isn't something I'm remotely close to being in a minority on.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not really. If you've played the game, you have to have seen yourself playing, and if you're better than anyone else you've seen, an accurate assessment would be to say that.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
But your statement was in regards to the west indian attack.
And SJS's analysis does not include the home series against the west indians.
Where after the 30 average series away in 82/83 ,he averaged 50.50 against a very strong attack at home.
And i think in his previous tour too when he had two great bowlers plus decent backup in julien he did well.Which somehow SJS diverted in his argument.
2nd Test: West Indies v India at Port of Spain, Mar 24-29, 1976 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com