Sachin Tendulkar focussed on his own performance, said Madan Lal who was team india coach from 1996 to 1997
Cricket, like any other sport, is also a number's game. Numbers tell the story, if not everything. That's how greatness is achieved, or rather defined. Former India coach Madal Lal also believes numbers are not everything, well, while comparing two former captains - Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, they also happen to be great players. (More Cricket News)
Tendulkar had a rather abysmal return as India captain, but his long-time opening partner, Ganguly is one of India's greatest skippers.
Lal's one-year stint as India head coach coincided with Tendulkar's short-lived first reign. He was also the chief selector of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) when Ganguly was installed as the national captain. So, he sure knew the trials and tribulations faced by both batting greats.
Making India a winning outfit was a big challenge for any captain, yes despite the individual riches in the team's ranks. Tendulkar and Ganguly themselves included. So, when the team continued to perform poorly, the blot became skipper's 'blood to be cleaned'.
"I won't agree with you that he was not a great captain. But he was so involved in his own performance, he found it difficult to take care of the team," Lal told Sportskeeda during a Facebook live session.
Tendulkar, the captain, had just 16% and 31.50% win records in Tests and ODIs respectively. That's awful looking stats for the player whose name is synonymous with the game itself. Just look at Tendulkar's other numbers, for example, the 100 hundreds.
"Because as a captain you not only need to take care of your performance, but also get the best performance from the other 10 players. It is critical how you manage them... Sachin had a very good quality of reading the game and telling the players where they were going wrong or how to bowl," Lal added.
Sachin captained India in 73 ODIs and 25 Tests, winning 23 and four matches respectively.
In contrast, Ganguly had far better numbers. He led India in 49 Tests, winning 21 of them at 42.85%. In ODIs, his returns were 54%, from 76 wins in 146 ODIs.
And Lal attributed some of Dada's success to his own way of handling things, including man-management. For that record, those astute administration skills have helped him become the president of BCCI.
"Sourav Ganguly was the leading candidate to become the captain in 2000. He used to quietly manage everybody in his own way," Lal said.
There's one popular anecdote of Tendulkar's captaincy. And it's credited to the person Tendulkar had succeeded as India captain, Mohammad Azharuddin.
"Nahin jeetega! Chote ki naseeb main jeet nahin hai!", which roughly translates into: "He won't win! It's not in the small one's destiny!"
So where did the 'Little Master' go wrong?
"He was superb in all these things. But it happens sometimes, that you give so much attention to your game that your difficulties compound. It was not that he was not a good captain," Lal explained.
But a captain is good as his team. What about the team that Tendulkar led, or the players' output. Or, if not the quality but the balance. Cricket is a team game, after all.
Former India wicket-keeper and chief selector, Kiren More once said that "when Sachin became captain, he wanted others to perform at his level. He always felt why others can't do it when he is able to. He may not have got enough support. Also one has to consider the team balance for a captain's success. When Dravid was named captain, I asked Sachin if he wanted to be captain again and he refused point blank."
Another India legend, Bishen Singh Bedi compared Tendulkar's captaincy records with those of West Indies great Sir Gary Sobers.
"He was shy and withdrawn. His basic middle-class upbringing helped him in his batting but I feel it restricted his leadership qualities. Authoritative guidance was missing from his captaincy. However, I am not too surprised as Sir Garry Sobers was also a great player but not a great captain," Bedi was quoted as saying by Deccan Chronicle.