Tendulkar’s 100th century burned in Bangladeshi blaze
By Geoff Lemon, 17 Mar 2012 Geoff Lemon is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Asia Cup, bangladesh cricket, Cricket, india cricket, International Cricket, ODI cricket, Sachin Tendulkar
100 Have your say
Is Sachin Tendulkar the greatest batsman ever? AAP Image/Paul Miller
Related coverage
Sachin Tendulkar finally dispensed with one of the sports media’s most annoying obsessions last night, as he ended a year-long wait for his 100th international century.
All summer, Australia’s cricketers had joked that they would love to see Tendulkar achieve the feat against Bangladesh. In the end he did just that, with a steady 114 in India’s second Asia Cup match in Dhaka last night.
Far from a meaningless smashing of top-flight cricket’s weakest team, though, the night ended in elation, as Bangladesh pulled off their country’s second-highest run chase to win in the final over and send home fans into delirium.
5/293 was reached with four balls to spare, chasing India’s 289. As with any number of Tendulkar’s achievements, his efforts ended up in a losing cause.
The hundred hundreds is, of course, a bogus milestone – an arbitrary addition of Tendulkar’s 51 Test centuries to an ODI tally that now stands at 49. But it had been talked about for so long that it had become real, a cricketing deity’s version of the word made flesh.
And however arbitrary the yardstick, it is well worth reflecting on the enormity of the man’s achievements over his 23 years at the top level. Former fast bowler Paul Reiffel made his Test debut after Tendulkar. Last night Reiffel watched Tendulkar’s hundred as an umpire.
His fans aside, Tendulkar has many critics who try to talk down his achievements. This milestone will be written off because it was reached against Bangladesh.
Aside from being an insult to a team whose subcontinental bowling has improved drastically in recent years, it is worth mentioning that Tendulkar’s previous 48 ODI hundreds were all scored against nations that were not Bangladesh.
Yes, this was indeed his first against India’s neighbours, to go with two half centuries. Only last night did Tendulkar complete the record of having scored Test and ODI centuries against every other Test nation.
Australia has fared worst over the years, conceding nine ODI hundreds to the Little Master, while Sri Lanka has given up eight.
It is also worth noting that while Tendulkar holds the record in both formats for most international appearances, a grand total of 12 of his 462 one-dayers have come against Bangladesh, and just seven of his 188 Tests.
All of which is rather at odds with the tiresome assertions of Tendulkar’s detractors, that his run-scoring and overall record are bulked up against weak opposition.
Last night’s was not an inning for the ages. It was a straightforward, pragmatic, effort, concentrating hard each ball and working the gaps, with a few early boundaries becoming more occasional through the middle of the innings.
A couple of tired slogs to the rope tried to lift the rate late in the piece, before he was caught behind in the 47th over.
Criticism will also come at the pace of the innings, with 114 runs from 147 balls. As he tended to do all summer, Tendulkar tensed up and slowed down as his score reached the 80s. Clearly the non-milestone has bothered him, more as a source of annoyance than an idea that it is inherently significant.
“I was not thinking about the milestone, the media started all this,” he said during the innings break. “Wherever I went, the restaurant, room service, everyone was talking about the 100th hundred. Nobody talked about my 99 hundreds.”
His caution was enough to see the monkey finally and fully prised free, and perhaps we will see a more relaxed Tendulkar from here. To blame India’s loss on that caution is to nominate oneself as a hindsight genius. A century at a strike rate of 77 is an enviable core around which to build a total, and 289 was certainly defendable.
In the end, there shouldn’t be too much focus on this innings. It’s not the hundredth century itself that is the achievement. It’s the completion of the set. The longevity and intense productivity of this batsman is unprecedented, and his exploits should be viewed from 1989 to now, in the manner of Kurt Vonnegut’s idea of time as the Rocky Mountain range.
More important than an arbitrary statistic is that last night saw a victory for Bangladesh, a side that was never supposed to beat India, and whose Asia Cup hopes are very much alive.
Mashrafe Mortaza put injury-blighted years behind him, yielding economy and key wickets. Tamim Iqbal buckled down for a foundation-stone 70 from 99.
Jahurul Islam and Nasir Hossain contributed fifities to move within striking range, while Shakib al-Hasan and Mushfiqur Rahim had the cool heads and clean striking to turn a requirement of 134 from 97 balls into a win with four balls to spare.
When Tendulkar started playing international cricket, the idea of Bangladesh’s involvement was as distant as a player scoring a hundred tons. That Bangladesh last night had the belief and poise to so coolly run down the World Cup champions showed how far things have come.
It was cricket in microcosm: the size and the substance of the characters within the game, the complexity of the plot, and the eventual realisation that no matter how big the hype, or how substantial the individual contribution, the game goes on, and the game is bigger than any of it.
Geoff Lemon is a writer and radio broadcaster. He joined The Roar as an expert columnist in 2010, writes the satirical blog Heathen Scripture, and tweets from @GeoffLemonSport.

March 17th 2012 @ 7:26am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 17th 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Let’s congratulate Master Tendulkar for his unique milestone and Bangladesh for their sensational victory.
March 19th 2012 @ 12:57pm
geno said | March 19th 2012 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Another game another Indian LOSS
But it’s okay cos Tendulkar made a hundred….
March 17th 2012 @ 8:11am
Ben Pobjie said | March 17th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
However, in those 7 tests against Bangladesh, he’s hit 5 centuries and averaged 136.66. So he goes all right against them in the long form.
March 17th 2012 @ 3:18pm
Geoff Lemon said | March 17th 2012 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Yes, he’s gone alright. It’s an interesting question, that one. People generally hold it against batsmen if they’re successful against Bangladesh. But isn’t the better batsman the one who maintains his focus against any opponent? Or is the better batsman Laxman, who averages a blasé 30-something against Bangladesh, and until recently averaged 60 against Australia?
March 17th 2012 @ 8:27am
Bayman said | March 17th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Poor old Sachin. First he needs just one more hundred for his 100 international hundreds. Now he needs one more hundred for 50 ODI centuries. Always just one more…….. When will it ever end?
On a slightly more serious note – great article Geoff and a nice perspective on Sachin’s achievement. The hundred hundreds certainly has seemed to be more of a media invention than anything particularly real. After all, ODI hundreds and Test hundreds are the same only in the fact they both need a hundred runs to qualify.
Given the media, and let’s be honest, India’s obsession with the milestone it almost seems appropriate that Sachin should achieve it in a losing cause. Perhaps it’s just me but this last summer I have long felt some Indian followers would rather Sachin get the hundred and India lose than the other way round.
India certainly has achieved its part of that devil’s bargain. Finally, Sachin has completed the deal. Thank God! Perhaps India can start winning now.
March 17th 2012 @ 2:09pm
Geoff Lemon said | March 17th 2012 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Thanks Bayman. Good to get your thoughts, as always. I tend to agree with you that it was a fitting way for such an odd milestone to be ‘celebrated’.
March 17th 2012 @ 8:30am
Ian Whitchurch said | March 17th 2012 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Carna Tigers
Good century in a losing effort.
Ben Pobjie,
In January 2010, Sehwag said Bangladesh’s attack was pretty ordinary. Shahadat then got upset and ripped through the Indian top order – in the first innings, All India without Tendulakr scored 138 runs.
Simply, he was the difference.
March 17th 2012 @ 8:52am
Oracle said | March 17th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Tony Greig , with his garage full of memorabilia for last summer, must be mortified
March 17th 2012 @ 2:07pm
Geoff Lemon said | March 17th 2012 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Tony doesn’t hold a grudge, Oracle. To Tony, a grudge is nothing more than a place to pork your cor!
(Or leftover Sachin memorabilia.)
March 17th 2012 @ 9:19am
sheek said | March 17th 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Geoff,
Why am I so under-whelmed?
You & Bayman both put it about right – this achievement is largely a media beatup, an Indian media beatup. And as Bayman adds, centuries in first-class (test) & one day cricket are so different, except for the triple figures.
Right now Tendulkar lies 15th on the list of highest test averages of those players appearing in more 30 innings, with 55.45. Bradman sits alone at the top at 99.94. Three others follow in the 60s – Graeme Pollock 60.97, George Headley 60.83, Harold Sutcliffe 60.73.
There are 36 players with averages between 61 & 50. There are many other players, like Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, to name just a few, who sit below Tendulkar in the averages, but are almost in the precise same sphere of ability as Tendulkar.
Of those 14 players who have a superior average to Tendulkar, only two have appeared in more than 100 tests – Kallis (152) at 10th & Sangakkara (106) at 14th. Tendulkar has played a mighty 188 tests.
If you live long enough, you’ll reach one hundred years of age! Similarly, if you play enough tests & ODIs in your career, you’ll get a 100 hundreds in both forms. Tendulkar was good enough to do this. But he also had the opportunity.
Tendulkar is India’s greatest batsman. Of that there is no doubt. Whether he deserves one of the top 4 batting positions (3-6) in an all-time World XI is hugely debatable. The competition is fierce – Bradman, Headley, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Lara, Sobers, Kallis.
None of this is intended to denigrate Tendulkar. But merely point out there are other guys just as good, maybe slightly better, who didn’t enjoy Tendulkar’s opportunity.
March 17th 2012 @ 10:46am
Geoff Lemon said | March 17th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Thoughtful response as usual, Sheek. I’d agree that Tendulkar has achieved what others might have with the same opportunity. However, the very fact that he has had that opportunity is a mighty achievement in its own right. Tendulkar has career longevity unequalled in the modern game.
Simply having the physical and mental tenacity to back up for 462 one-day matches – 462! – is extraordinary. That’s a year and three months straight. Then add 188 Test matches, and add the ability to contribute heavily and meaningfully over that entire period of time.
Someone like Lara had as much talent, maybe more, at his best. But he wasn’t ready to debut until he was 21, and didn’t score a century until 23, while Tendulkar debuted at 16 and scored his first hundred at 17. Likewise, Lara had lost his joy in the game and his spark as a player at a younger age than Tendulkar is now.
For a player to be fully formed as a teenager and then remain elite at well the retirement age of most others is something that sets him apart as particularly special.
March 19th 2012 @ 10:32pm
amazonfan said | March 19th 2012 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
“Of those 14 players who have a superior average to Tendulkar, only two have appeared in more than 100 tests – Kallis (152) at 10th & Sangakkara (106) at 14th. Tendulkar has played a mighty 188 tests.
If you live long enough, you’ll reach one hundred years of age! Similarly, if you play enough tests & ODIs in your career, you’ll get a 100 hundreds in both forms. Tendulkar was good enough to do this. But he also had the opportunity.
Tendulkar is India’s greatest batsman. Of that there is no doubt. Whether he deserves one of the top 4 batting positions (3-6) in an all-time World XI is hugely debatable. The competition is fierce – Bradman, Headley, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Lara, Sobers, Kallis.
None of this is intended to denigrate Tendulkar. But merely point out there are other guys just as good, maybe slightly better, who didn’t enjoy Tendulkar’s opportunity.”
I don’t agree. The fact is that Tendulkar is the only cricketer to have achieved what is an extraordinarily difficult achievement. Unlike with growing older, there is no guarentee that any other cricketer could score as many centuries, even if they play as many matches. Some may, however it’s something that we’ll never know.
That said, Tendulkar scored a century in 16.40% of his career innings, which is eighth of all time. The seven cricketers above him might have as many centuries as Tendulkar, if they had played as many innings, but we have no way of knowing for sure.
March 17th 2012 @ 10:31am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 17th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Sheek,
U2, Sheek?
No one can doubt Bradman, Headley, G Pollock, V Richards, Lara, Sobers and Kallis as your top batsmen. But where are Trumper, Hammond, Weekes, May, Harvey, G Chappell and Gavaskar, as indeed Tendulkar and Ponting?
As I’ve said often on Roar: No one has faced fast bowling as fierce and swinging as Gavaskar did; the 4 Windies killers, then Lillee & Thommo, Snow, Imran et al as an opener (under 5’5″ in height) and without a proper hemet and still average over 50 in Tests. Bradman faced one real fast bowler, Larwood, and his average was around 50 in the Bodyline series.
Give Gavaskar the credit he deserves.
The attack Kallis, Ponting and Tendulkar face these days is nothing compared to what Gavaskar did. Well, Border maybe, but he did not have to face the LilianThomson chin music.
March 17th 2012 @ 12:30pm
sheek said | March 17th 2012 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Kersi,
I’m actually on your side…..! (As we did indeed discuss some of these points at various lunches).
March 18th 2012 @ 12:55am
Bayman said | March 18th 2012 @ 12:55am | Report comment
Kersi,
To be fair, Gavaskar never had to face body-line bowling with the field purposely set for it either. Sure, he might have copped some short pitched bowling but not with the intent of body-line. Indeed, it might be argued that his height, or lack of it, was actually an advantage against short pitched bowling (although Bradman was no giant).
As for Bradman’s opposition I think that bowlers like Voce, Farnes, Allen were all pretty quick – by the standards of then or today. Larwood has the notoriety but he wasn’t the only fast bowler England possessed. At the end of his career Bradman also had Bedser to deal with. Larwood, Voce, Tate and Bedser are considered some of the best fast bowlers England has ever produced. The Windies, of course, also had Constantine who was decidedly quick (and, with Martindale, happily returned the body-line favour to England in 1933 – it soon was banned).
Farnes may well have improved his standing had the war not intervened. He was killed in 1941.
So, Kersi, it’s a mistake to think Larwood was the only real fast bowler Bradman ever faced just because he – Larwood – is the best known of Bradman’s adversaries.
Incidentally, that West Indian attack Gavaskar faced in his first real series was pretty ordinary apart from Sobers who was nearing the end of a great career. Gavaskar missed the first Test and then scored 774 in eight innings (three not outs) to average 154.8.
Gavaskar scored, in sequence, 65, 67no, 116, 64no, 1, 117, 124, 220. It could be argued that it all went down hill from there.
Yes, I am being a bit mischievous!
March 18th 2012 @ 9:53am
Jason said | March 18th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
No you’re not Bayman. Gavaskar didn’t really play much against the proper Windies sides of the era when you also throw in the WSC days. At some stage I’ll try to dig up the relevant stats.
I also don’t know that Sunny played against both Lillee and Thompson in the same game.
March 19th 2012 @ 12:48pm
Pope Paul VII said | March 19th 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Sunny did score 3 100s against the Thommo lead 77/78 establishment attack. Thommo’s partners included establishment legends Alan Hurst, Wayne Clark, Sam Gannon and Ian Callen. Epic series. Although this was after Thommo’s injury he was mightily swift. Later in the West Indies he took 6/77 against full strength WSC team.
I Think Braddles got a bit of a hurry up from Martindale and Griffith( I think ), the first character to inflict a duck on him.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:05am
Bayman said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Pope Paul,
Yes, he did indeed score three centuries against Australia – and Thommo – in 1977/78. Curiously, all in the second innings and his combined first innings scores in those three matches was seven.
He also scored seven in the first innings of the final game in Adelaide (and twenty-nine in the second dig).
But, as you said, he still had those three hundreds.
March 17th 2012 @ 11:50am
Westie said | March 17th 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
We all saw close up how ‘great’ this Tendulkar bloke is in the recent summer against our test standard team. Made a half century apparently.
He is actually holding his team back, am sure they have someone younger and hungrier than him in that billion and a half nation.
He has become fat and selfish.
Ohh, his side LOST when he made his great century. In Moneyball, the guys that put together the performances regularly are not necessarily the most famous.
March 17th 2012 @ 1:33pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 17th 2012 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Westie,
For your information, Tendulkar scored 73 and 32 in the Melbourne Test and 41 and 80 in the Sydney Test, playing like a master in all four innings. The press made him look a failure because he did not score a century. Yes, he failed in the next two Tests and in the ODI series.
Everyone has a poor series. Don’t forget the all-time great Greg Chappell had scored seven ducks in 15 internationals in 1981-82 against WI and Pakistan, including four ducks in a row. It happens to the best and you don’t judge a cricketer by a few failures.
Do you know Tendulkar to label him selfish? In yesterday’s match he hit 12 fours and a six in his 114 at a strike-rate of 78. Perhaps slow for T20 cricket but a par strike-rate in ODIs. But for him India would have been dismissed for under 200. If the Indian bowlers were ineffective, is it Tendulkar’s fault?
So think before you write, Westie and remove that tall-poppy syndrome. We are lucky that in the last decade we have seen outstanding cricketers like Warne, Lara, the Waughs, McGrath, Tendulkar, Hayden, Dravid and Ponting. From a teenager to an elder statesman, Tendulkar has brought credit to the game of cricket.
March 17th 2012 @ 2:06pm
Geoff Lemon said | March 17th 2012 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Well said, KMH.
March 17th 2012 @ 3:50pm
Tom said | March 17th 2012 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Kersi,
How on earth can you make all those perfectly valid points about judging batsmen by the attacks they faced and then call Hayden an outstanding cricketer? He never had a good series against a first-rate fast attack, did he?
March 18th 2012 @ 1:20pm
Disco said | March 18th 2012 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Hear hear.
March 20th 2012 @ 2:37pm
soapit said | March 20th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
india 00/01. everyone else seemed incapable against that attack so it must have had something going for it.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:49pm
Tom said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Yes, soapit, that was his best series by a mile. And yes, that attack did have something going for it: Harbhajan Singh.
First test: opening bowlers got 4 wickets between them, Singh got 4 as well.
Second test: openers got 2 wickets, Singh got 13.
Third test: openers (including Ganguly!!) got 1 wicket, Singh got 15.
Thanks for making me look up, I’d forgotten what a joke India’s fast bowling was in that series. Point stands: as great as Hayden was in that series, he never flourished against a seriously good fast attack.
March 18th 2012 @ 11:45am
Westie said | March 18th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
As far as the Indian cricket team goes, Tendulkar is an all time great. Mind you, they have a pretty average history.
Tendulkar has been fortunate in that he dodged the West Indies great sides and the Indians play test matches infrequently and when they do it is usually on flat tracks.
Personally, I would rank him below Steve Waugh, miles below Allan Border and Greg Chappell. Don’t even talk about Ponting and Tendulkar in the same breath.
One matter that grates me about Tendulkar and the media has been the white washing of the business about Sachin and LBWs. Until the video review system the man was hardly ever given out due to pressure on umpires to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then they introduced the video review system and all of a sudden he was getting trapped. Any wonder the Indian cricket authorities do not want the system in place for their matches. It makes it too difficult to influence the umpires with the video system in place which does not suit.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:33am
Tom said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
“the man was hardly ever given out due to pressure on umpires to give him the benefit of the doubt”??
Don’t the laws of the game still force any umpire to give any batsman any benefit of the doubt at any time?
Fair enough not to rate the bloke as highly as Border, who played right through the golden age of fast bowling and was deadset robbed not to be named in that all-time XI, but surely he and Punter are on more or less the same level.
March 17th 2012 @ 3:56pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 17th 2012 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Thank you, Geoff.
I enjoy all your articles.
You must have stayed up all night to watch the exciting match in Dhaka and then report it for The Roar straight away.
You write with balance, the best attribute for a journalist and sadly missing today.
Full credit to Bangladesh, well-bowled and batted with verve and pinache.