We were there when Tendulkar hit his hundredth international hundred
We were there, looking at a Cricinfo scorecard, waiting for the number to change. That’s how people watch cricket these days, right? That’s how we experience these supposedly momentous events.
We think we speak for most people when we say that we’re glad that’s out of the way. A hundred international hundreds is an odd statistic, amalgamating Test and one-day performances to arrive at a nice, round figure and the brouhaha surrounding it has detracted from some intriguing cricket.
Tendulkar’s failures have sucked the limelight from those who deserved it and his ‘failures’ have taken the gloss of decent two-figure innings. Not his fault, but still irritating.
We have written a little bit about the achievement which we’ll probably publish tomorrow. We wrote it months ago, it can wait another day. For now we just wanted to give an honest reaction. How do you feel?
Update: India’s policy of rarely playing matches in Bangladesh would seem to have been vindicated by the fact that they lost this one. Impeccable procession micturition, Bangladesh.
You really should subscribe to our email updates - here's why
We did not know that a cricket ferret was a thing until we saw this
Stop pre-empting tomorrow’s post.
It strikes us that this innings represents one per cent of Sachin Tendulkar’s international hundreds. His previous one was 1.01 per cent. In many ways, you learn less and less about someone as time goes on.
No. You stop post-empting yesterday’s predictions.
The last but one paragraph reminded me of the line from the movie about Alexander – “His failures were more magnificent than most people’s successes”.
A bit melodramatic, I know, but it’s Sachin after all.
PS: Now I am off to piss of Tendulkar fanboys telling them how he failed in overseas tours and finally scratched one against Bangladesh.
I was there in much the same fashion, your maj.
Actually I picked my moment brilliantly, logging on to Cricinfo for the first time today when Sachin was on 99. Glory hunter, me. Fair weather friend to Sachin.
Am I the only person here who felt more cheered by Cook’s ton in a warm-up match than I did by Sachin’s ton in Mirpur?
Does the great man retire now? Sachin I mean, not Cook.
We were exactly the same. He was on 99 when we first looked.
Those of us highly sensitised to the game must have all got some sort of esp wave of energy that led us subliminally to the Cricinfo button.
Either that, or it just happened that the 99 occurred at that point in the morning when the concentration-deficient start to seek some non-work mental stimulation in a vain attempt to maintain/regain their sanity.
I don’t care one way or another but I’m storing this for future pub quizes: Shakib-al-Hasan.
Now we can start the 50th ODI century build-up
it says a lot that they lost anyway
Heh. He reached his (very contrived) ‘milestone’ in a defeat, in an ODI, against Bangladesh. Talk about anti-climatic. Marvellous.
Still, I’m glad he’s got the nonsensical monkey off his back.
Strangely, failed to work up any interest in this event. Much less than 1 per cent of Sachin’s career. Would have preferred a Bradmanesque imperfection in the statistic, although making it in a loss to Bangladesh does leave a small fly in the amber.
So some of you feel “meh” and some feel this is something. Damn this all! I’ll ask the man that matters.
Question: Hey Clint, do you think hundred hundreds is a big deal?
it is, as you say, an odd statistic. Incredible achievement, no doubt, but hyped to the point of obscuring everything else, even about tendulkar himself. Such as the fact that he’s been in rotten form for about a year, or that it was one of his slowest innings ever against a bangladeshi attack on a decent batting pitch.
Of course with tendulkar, the relationship between hype and reality is stronger than with others. The weight of scoring that damn hundred seems to have been half the reason for his poor form.
Or so I hope. Cos if not – he’s 39, and what kind of a revival can you expect at this age?
Check out Wright Thompson’s excellent article at cricinfo: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/557263.html
He has condemned himself to having to play on even if he thinks it is now time to go as retirement would be an admission that he was only playing on to make a personal milestone. Question is how long does he have to play to prove his indifference? Or would another century do?
The feat provoked two reactions in the office: ‘meh’ and ‘I prefer Rahul Dravid’. Both sentiments were seconded. Only two people were involved in this conversation.
I had the match (video and CricInfo commentary)on the bedside laptop from 0400 when it started. I dozed on and off until 0630 (about when I wake up) and realised that “it” was probably going to happen. Which it did, shortly after 0700 local here as I recall. Then I got up and got ready for work.
I’d rather have watched the Bangla’s chase, which I missed, because I was at work. A peek at the CricInfo app on my phone delivered the news that they had won.
Then the Windies didn’t have the consideration to put up enough of a fight to ensure I could watch the end of the ODI after I got home from work. Honestly. What good is that, when I finally have Australia playing matches in my time zone? And that after Oz got a rather sub-par 204.
Oh, and what The Smudge said.
If one Tendulkar century is enough to consign India to defeat, as it is sometimes hypothesized, then imagine what effect it would have had if that century was also a century in centuries.
I prefer Rahul Dravid.
This isn’t Tendulkar’s fault. He is the best batsman I have seen. A fuller explanation here – http://www.islandexpress.blogspot.in/2011/11/hysteria-and-its-effect-on-cricket.html