You are right that he did not get much flak. Which really means there wasn't any public outrage. The fact that there was next to no electronic media in India at that time is the main reason for that.
Amongst those who played the game there was shock and incomprehension. It must be remembered, however, that it was only India's third ever ODI having played a couple the previous summer in England. By the way, in its very first ODI game in 1974 India had been bowled out with 6.1 overs still left to be bowled for 265. That was almost 5 runs an over. So the 334, though really a big score, wasn't something India would have thought completely out of the realm of possibility.
By the way, in that first ODI of 1974, Brijesh Patel had scored a rollicking 82 at better than a run a ball. However in this partnership with Gavaskar (the 36 run epic) Patel scored 16 not out in 57 deliveries!
WE discussed the game endlessly back home and the general feeling was the same as we had for Test matches where we were used to defending for our lives most of the times, "If we cant win we are going to stick to the wicket and play for our honour and not get out." It was also fashionable in those early days for some cricketers to run down the limited overds game in the manner in which the twenty over format was disparaged till people realised what it did to their bank balances. "Its no test of cricketing skills" was the common refrain.
For the record, Indian manager Ramchand told the media "Gavaskar had considered the England score unobtainable and had taken practice."
This was nonsense of course because in case of a tie on points teams in the froup stage the net run rate was to be taken into account so India had everything to play for and try and score the maximum runs
even if they were facing 500 runs!
No. There was no honour in holding on to their wickets, playing for dear life, utilising the time for practice or to show contempt for the game. Tony Lewis wrote in his Diary of the Season....
" I suppose I have had as close a look into the Indian mind as any cricketer, but I would never risk a guess at Gavaskar's motives. His cussedness could quite easily have been formed before the match by matters of selection, his hotel bedroom or even the nightly meal allowance! 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.
Dejected Indians ran onto the field, pathetically pleading with him to die fighting. Their flags hung limp in their hands. It was a perverse moment of self-inflicted shame."
