Due to Kumble...

Has Kumble got his due? That’s the question which plagued the Indian cricket fraternity for quite some time. Interestingly, the question came up at a time when he was made the captain. Though the announcement of his captaincy was suspect of having a lot to do with the prevailing conditions, that the choice was ever made had nothing to do with redeeming Kumble his worth. There wasn’t any candidate who could have been given the job. Any question of bringing Dravid back, was a no-no, given the fact that he had ruffled few feathers – in the wrong quarters, after announcing his sudden decision of not continuing as the captain. With Ganguly’s inclusion in the team itself being a millon dollar question, there wasn’t any chance of him regaining the captaincy. Tendulkar is better off as a player, which even he has realized, and particularly after hitting such a good form he wouldn’t have entertained the thought of captaincy. The only possible claimant to the title could have been Dhoni. But a twenty-twenty victory isn’t enough to prove your worth. Test cricket is a different game all together - not just in its format, but the grit and gumption required here is way more than what is required in a 20-20 match. And then again, Dhoni has to prove himself in the Test format. He needs to be groomed before he can be looked upon as a worthy successor. So was there anybody else left for the job? It had to be Kumble!
All said and done, the question whether Kumble ever got his due, still manages to re-surface. Quite often, it is said that he is a far under-celebrated player vis-à-vis the likes of Tendulkars or Dravids. Even upstarts in the team have claimed more fame than Kumble. Six sixes of Yuvraj can earn him a place in the test squad, but a surreal ten wicket haul is not enough for assuring Kumble his place in the team! But really, is there a question at all to ask whether Kumble ever got his due? His captaincy might help him earn a better farewell, but the accolades which his loyalists want for him might remain as real as a dream.
Cricket has always been a batsman’s game. Is there any bowler who has been toasted more than a batsman? One might argue by putting forward names like – Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Muralitharan, McGrath, etc.; but therein lies the rub. Warne comes from a place not known to produce quality spinners. That he mastered the craft of spin has made him a legend but his legend doesn’t stand any taller than that of the Don or even Steve Waugh. McGrath owes much of his success to his team, particularly to Warne who bowled with him in tandem. But even the ability to keep that nagging line and length in place hasn’t fetched McGrath more praise than others. It’s the oddity of being a quality spinner from a place which usually produces fast bowlers that pushed Warne a notch higher than the rest. Similarly, in the case of much talked about Monty Panesar it’s the peculiarity of the fact that, in the English conditions where normally the seamers are more effective it’s a spinner who has managed to trouble the batsmen by a few degrees more; otherwise, England, certainly, has seen far better bowlers than Monty whose Test average is indeed very average. In the sub-continent, Murali came to hog the attention not before he had started breaking records, and was right at the top when he went on to carve some space for himself beside Jayasuriya, Ranatunga, DeSilva, etc. Same is the case with Wasim Akram, who despite the spin friendly conditions in the sub-continent managed to come good as a fast bowler. He emerged as a hero not only for his immense talent, but also for the fact that the sub-continent which has been home to some of the most sly spin bowlers had never seen such a fine pace bowler. This feat though exemplar, is not toasted any more than the six on the last ball by Miandad or the heroics of Inzamam.
Even if this argument is conceded that there are bowlers who have their legend on a par with batsmen, what cannot be ignored is that the legend gains prominence only when an ultimate milestone is crossed, whether at the national or international level. Until then the bowler remains under the shadows of the batsmen who rule the game. A lot has to do with the way the game is perceived. Cricket in its present form is biased towards batsmen by offering them plenty of opportunities to mark successes. A batsman is received well whenever he hits a half-century or a century. Similar opportunities are not present for the bowler. A three wicket haul or a fiver often changes the course of a match but the crowd rarely acknowledges it as a special effort. A bowler hardly gets his due when he could be bowling his heart out but without any wicket to his name. It is this phenomenon of ‘immediate recognition’ reserved only for the batsmen that creates the difference. So acute is this phenomenon that even a four or a six fetches a rapturous applause from the crowd but never so on a probing maiden over from a bowler. Somehow a three wicket haul is not as same as a half-century or a fiver same as a century. The spectator as unmindful as a cow on an Indian street doesn’t accord importance to a good spell from a bowler. But why talk only about the bowlers when behind the stumps the wicket keeper could be a real gem or the fielder at point might be absolutely brilliant. The cliché of the unsung hero cannot be better placed anywhere else.
The tragedy of the game is that the scoreboard doesn’t have enough space to register the efforts of a player; it only manages to squeeze in the match summary.