Yadavendra Singh

There is a mistaken notion that the first-ever ‘royal personality’ to represent India in official Test cricket was Iftiqar Ali Khan, the senior Nawab of Pataudi. The credit goes to the impeccable credentials of the Yuvraj of Patiala, Yadavendra Singh.

 The tall, strong and handsome Sikh possessed a heart as big as his frame. Never took advantage of his royal status. Never craved for power.  Knew not pettiness.  In an age when ‘royalty’ was expected to lead on and off the field, Yadavendra Singh readily offered his services to play a Test match under the leadership of the ‘commoner’, CK Nayudu.

The opposition was England. The season was 1933-34 and the venue happened to be the first-ever Test at Chepauk in the heart of Chennai. With Douglas Jardine as the opposition skipper, no player – royalty or commoner – could expect any mercy.

Unlike Natwarsinhji (Porbandar) and Ghanashyamsinhji (Limbdi), the young prince of Patiala was an outstanding batsman, who hit the ball with immense power. Particularly fond of cover-driving, the ferocity of the hook stroke attracted him. To bat against the likes of Mohammed Nissar, among the fastest-ever, was no joke, especially on the coir-matting pitches of Northern India. Yadavendra used the bat as a scimitar whenever he found the time for cricket from his busy schedule of Patiala State duties.

After the Tests at Bombay Gymkhana and Eden Gardens, where the Indian batting had not fared too well, the selectors opted for Yadavendra at Chepauk. In those days the Madras Cricket Club saw to it that the pitch had a rich layer of grass to make the contest between bat and ball even.

In the first innings, debutant Yadavendra Singh notched an uncharacteristic, sedate 24 to Vijay Merchant’s 26. But in the second outing the young prince was at his attacking best against the likes of Headley Verity, Clark and Nichols. His ferocious hook to the left of the leg umpire had even the tough Jardine nod in approval. His magnificent 60 was India’s highest score in the innings. The athleticism of Yuvraj came to the fore as snapped both the catches that came his way.

As it transpired, this Test was both his debut and swan-song. He was a certainty for India’s following tour to England in 1936. But the Yuvraj could not find the time from his pressing duties as the monarch of Patiala. Cricket’s loss was Patiala’s gain.

Yadavendra’s father was the Maharaja of Patiala, Bhupinder Singh, who was the numero uno among the patrons of Indian cricket. In 1911 Bhupinder sponsored the first-ever fully representative India team to England to gain experience. Patiala’s team was not restricted to any community or province. That would go completely against the grain of this generous visionary. He invited players from all over India. He was the man who donated the Ranji Trophy, the symbol of India’s premier cricket championship. The House of Patiala’s contributions to Indian sports are too numerous to be mentioned here.

Despite such magnanimous contributions to Indian cricket, neither father nor son ever jockeyed for posts in the hierarchy of Indian cricket. Ironically neither was ever a president of BCCI. They all along stayed away from its musty corridors.  They were among the wealthiest and the most influential of the royal families, yet they never bothered to dominate the BCCI. They helped Indian cricket like no other, yet they never stayed back to enjoy the benefits. They let the petty and the corrupt to crawl in the stench. Patiala’s contribution to Indian cricket has been forgotten because they never bothered about publicity or power.

  

               

                                      Indian touring team to England, 1932

Captain Natwarsinhji and deputy Ghanshyamsinhji are seated 3rd and 4th from left.

                  Tale of two unheralded patriots of Indian cricket

In 1932 the Indian cricket team set sail for Britain to play their first-ever official Test match. The chosen captain of the touring team was the Maharaja of Porbandar, Natwarsinhji. His deputy was the Maharaja of Limbdi, Ghanashyamsinhji.

 Both were very mediocre cricketers. But at the time, in the 1930s, it was felt that leaders can only come from the princely classes. Hence the two members of the royalty were given the top two posts in the Indian cricket team to play their debut Test.

Thankfully both Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji were educated, liberal souls, in the most appropriate sense of those words. They were sensible enough to understand that if they were in the playing XI, the national team would become weak. Both declined to play in the inaugural Test at Lord’s. That Test match being the sole Test of the series, they never got to play for India again.

Skipper Natwarsinhji and his deputy Ghanashyamsinhji decided that the best choice to lead would be the ‘commoner’ CK Nayudu. Accordingly India’s first-ever Test captain was Cottariya Konkaiya Nayudu, a magnificent all-rounder and a born leader of men. CK’s elevation to the top was not because of the selection committee, but because of the magnanimous gesture of two princely gentlemen.

The chief reasons for highlighting this extraordinary event are quite a few. To begin with, this particular issue has not yet seen the light of day. Indian authors and historians could not decipher the magnitude of the gesture of two men who sacrificed immortality for the just cause of the nation. Both Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji deserve our salute.

Secondly, in the annals of international Test cricket such a unique sacrifice has never been seen. No captain-elect has ever relinquished his debut captaincy in this magnificent manner.

Thirdly, this is a very significant issue in the light of modern thinking. At a time when ‘commoners’ in BCCI are fighting among themselves for every bit of crumb on the table, we in India have had ‘royal’ people who knew how to sacrifice self for the cause of the deserving individuals as well as for the nation.

Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji are names that even the top Indian cricketers and administrators are unaware of. In fact they do not want to know about them. As one former India captain has recently observed, “…why bother about what happened earlier; all that is in the past!”

Today where is the time for chivalry and magnanimity in the quagmire of corruption?  Now the whole emphasis is on money and power; power and money. Nothing else matters.

Genuine cricket connoisseurs would do well to remember these two unheralded and forgotten gentlemen of Indian cricket.

A correction.

In my last article I mentioned that the former Test opener Apurva Sengupta of Services rose to become a lieutenant colonel in the Indian army. Col Samir Bose has rectified the factual error of mine by mentioning that Sengupta went on to become a lieutenant general and won several gallantry awards. Thanks to Col Bose, I stand corrected.

 

Following is an excellent article from Col. Bose which I wish to share with all cricket addicts.

TWO ALL -ROUNDERS

                Our latest coach Ravi Shastri and the great Wilfred Rhodes, had many similarities as all-rounders.  Both were right hand batsmen and bowled left arm orthodox spin.   Shastri appears  to be the better batsman and Rhodes the better bowler.  Here are their Test career stats.

Batting

Player	Tests	Inns	No	Runs	HS	Ave	100’s	50’s
Ravi Shastri	80	121	14	3830	206	35.79	11	12
Wilfred Rhodes	58	98	21	2325	179	30.19	2	11

Bowling

Player	Tests	Balls	Runs	Wkts	Ave	5 Wkts/Inns	10 Wkts/Test
Ravi Shastri	80	15751	6185	151	40.96	2	0
Wilfred Rhodes	58	8225	3425	127	26.96	6	1

                The batting feats of Wilfred Rhodes does not compare favourably but during his career he held both the 1^st wicket partnership record of 323 with Jack Hobbs and 10^th wicket partnership of 130 with R E Foster.  The first wkt partnership was bettered by Hutton and Washbrook, who raised it to 359 and Roy and Mankad to 413.  It is now held by Neil McKenzie and Graeme Smith at 415.  In the 10^th wicket partnership of 130 Rhodes contributed 40 not out, but enabled Foster to score 287, which remains the highest score by a debutant.

                It is said that he was last in the batting order in his debut Test, but the score card shows him to have come in at No.10 with J T Hearne at No.11.  He scored  6 in the first inns and did not bat in the second.  Another cricketer making his debut for Australia in the same match made 0 and 11. He was the immortal Victor Trumper.  Ravi Shastri  also made his debut at No.10 and scored 3*.  In the second innings he scored 19.

                There was a period when Rhodes regularly opened with Jack Hobbs.  As a result his bowling suffered.  In the 1911-12 series against Australia he bowled a total of only 18 overs.  After the First World War, he was back again tormenting the batsmen with his guile.  On his debut on Jun 1-3 1899, Rhodes took 4 for 58 and 3 for 60.  In England’s second innings,  only a brilliant 93 not out by Ranji, out of 155 for 7 wkts, helped draw the match.   Ravi Shastri’s debut was no less dramatic.  His figures were 3 for 54 and 3 for 9.  Because of his height (6’3”), Shastri was obliged to bowl a flatter trajectory, but the awkward bounce of the ball made the batsman play defensively.

                I give here the description of a slow left arm orthodox bowler, “ he prevailed by length, variations of flight, but chiefly by unceasing accuracy always demanding close attention from the batsman, every ball a decoy, some balls guileless, some artfully masked and one of them, the master ball.  He was economical in action, a few short strides, then a beautifully balanced sideways swing of the body, the arm loose and making a lovely arch.  He could go on for hours”.  Anybody  reading this would assume the bowler to be Bishan Singh Bedi.  And he would be wrong.  This is the description of Wilfred Rhodes by Neville Cardus, both masters in their chosen fields.

                When cricket was resumed in 1919 after World War I, there were plenty of good batsman around, but a dearth of strike bowlers, so Wilfred Rhodes reverted to his earlier role and batsmen once again had to deal with the tormentor.  Rhodes had made himself into a batsman by practice and hard work.

                Shastri, on the other hand maintained his bowling skills and gradually improved as a batsman till he became a regular opening batsman.   He never looked back and ended up with 11 centuries and 12 fifties.  Shastri himself admitted that he was not particularly talented but had come up only through hard work.  For over a decade, Ravi Shastri  rendered yeoman service to Indian Cricket.  As an obdurate batsman, he put a price on his wicket.  In his last test he opened the innings as he was wont to do, while Wilfred Rhodes came in at No.10 in his last Test.  He remained not out in both innings, scoring 8* and 11*.  Shastri in his last test scored 10( 107 minutes and 76 balls) and 5 ( 96 minutes and 68 balls).  That personifies his will to fight.  His record of 3830 runs and 151 wkts in Test cricket speak for themselves.  Rhodes in his last test, at the age of 52, bowled 20.5-12-17-1 and 24-13-22-1.  This test is famous for another reason.  Andy Sandham, opening the innings, scored 325 in the 4^th Test 3-12 April 1930, the first triple century in Tests.

                We tend to forget that Ravi Shastri is the holder of two batting records in first class cricket.  His normal batting being underlined by obduracy, one tends to forget that he equalled the feat of six sixes in one over, first achieved by Gary Sobers. Shastri hit Tilak Raj for six sixes in an over in a Ranji Trophy match, Mumbai vs Baroda in 1984.  He also went on to score the fastest ever double century in first class cricket (200* in 123 balls) in that innings.

                We salute these two cricketers, two all- rounders, imbibed with great fighting spirit, whose feats will always be remembered wherever cricket is played. 

Resignations in Indian Cricket

While on the issue of coach-captain relationship and the resignation that followed, let me highlight two very important resignation events in Indian cricket that have been buried for decades.

In 1958-59 West Indies under Franz Alexander, the last of the white West Indies captains, toured India. He had with him the fearsome fast bowling duo of Wesley Hall and Roy Gilchrist. Not used to such ferocious pace, most Indian batters were in no mood to occupy the crease and put up resistance. They succumbed, time and again, without any fight.

Such was the panic in the Indian camp that India had no less than 4 captains in the 5 Tests! Polly Umrigar led in the 1^st Test at Bombay; Ghulam Ahmed took over in the following two at Kanpur and Calcutta (both were lost) and Umrigar was brought back as captain for the 4^th Test at Madras.

Just before the start of the Test match, captain-elect Polly Umrigar wanted the Bombay all-rounder Monohar Hardikar to play. Hardikar had played in the first two Tests without inspiring confidence. In view of the batting collapses, the selectors – Amarnath, Jai, Ramaswamy and Dutta Ray –  decided to bolster India’s batting strength with a man who played fast bowling with courage. Amarnath, the chief selector, was not a man to be browbeaten by the captain he helped to select.

The national selection committee opted for opener Apurva Kumar Sengupta. They had very good reasons for selecting the 20 year-old Apu Sengupta because the fearless Services opener had just scored 32 and 100 not out against the same West Indies attack on his first-class debut. He batted with impeccable resolve and authority against the fury of Hall, Gilchrist, Jaswik Taylor and Garfield Sobers.  The young military-cadet AK Sengupta went on to become a very courageous lieutenant colonel with the Indian Army. Unfortunately Indian cricket had no time for the talented army man without any references.

On a point of principle, the chosen captain Polly Umrigar resigned from the captaincy on the morning of the Madras Test match as he felt that he was not being given the XI he wanted. His place as captain was taken by Vinoo Mankad, who also was sidelined for the next Test by Hemu Adhikari. India actually had four different captains in five Tests. It was the worst of times…, as Dickensians would understand,… in Indian cricket.

 Later in life, when he himself had become a national selector, my hero Polly Umrigar was matured and gracious enough to admit that instead of resigning he should have accepted the selectors’ role.

 This was the second significant instance of resignation that happened in Indian cricket.

                                                           *********************

Earlier in 1951-52, India under Vijay Hazare defeated England at Madras for their first-ever Test match victory in 25 outings. The hero of the match was Vinoo Mankad, at the time among the premier all-rounders of the world. Mankad took 8 for 55 and 4 for 53 in the innings victory. Pankaj Roy and Polly Umrigar scored magnificent centuries. Later India was scheduled to tour England in May.

In April 1952 Mankad went over to England to keep his appointment as a professional cricketer in the Lancashire Leagues. The Indian selectors – CK Nayudu, HN Contractor and M Dutta Ray – informed Mankad that he had to come back to India to attend a trial match for the ensuing England tour in May! Mankad replied that he was involved with a cricket club in UK as a pro and would be penalized if he were to go back to India without fulfilling his contractual obligation. Later, he even agreed to attend the trial in India if he was assured of selection in the Indian team to England. CK was adamant that Mankad would have to attend the trial and no one would be assured of selection in the team. Both certainly had valid points.

But Mankad could not afford to come back and so was omitted from the team. India went to England in 1952 under Vijay Hazare with the best all-rounder in the world dropped from the team! India lost the first Test at Headingley, being 4 wickets down for zero run at one stage!

The manager of the team was Pankaj Gupta, a manager who was used to winning gold medals at the Olympics in the company Dhyan Chand, Rup Singh and the other top stars of Indian hockey of the 1920s and 1930s. Gupta was hailed by no less a persona than Don Bradman who affectionately called him Peter instead of Pankaj. Gupta had little time for personal ego clashes and petty squabbles. The educated, liberal soul thought of India as a nation and not a land of provinces and communities.

Without wasting any time to discuss with BCCI or with the selectors, manager Pankaj Gupta invited Vinoo Mankad to come from Lancashire and join the India team for the 2^nd Test at Lord’s. The India captain Vijay Hazare was sensible enough not to object. Mankad’s contributions in the Test were 72 and 184, highest scores in either innings. As if this was not enough, he took 5 wickets. The Test came to be known as “Mankad’s Test”. No one in the history of cricket has been able to replicate such an astounding feat for a losing team.

Chief selector CK Nayudu, in a fit of pique, resigned from the selection committee for manager Pankaj Gupta’s action. However after another season, CK Nayudu returned to the selection committee realizing that the decision taken by Gupta was in national interest.

The CK Nayudu incident happened to be the first significant resignation in Indian cricket. The tussle was between the manager and the selection committee chairman. The Umrigar issue was between the captain and the selection committee chairman Lala Amarnath. And now with the Kumble-Kohli feud the relationship between coach and captain has come to the forefront. In between Greg Chappel put in his papers after a golden handshake as the BCCI was not happy with his handling of senior cricketers.

Personally I stick my neck out and say that every man whether captain, coach, manager or selector has a distinct role to play and should try to stay within his orbit. But every man warming these responsible seats must be matured enough to think of national interest ahead of petty considerations. If the captain starts dictating terms in others roles, then why have coaches, managers and selectors at all?

Self-respect above all considerations

There is a concerted attempt by certain people to say that the Kumble-fiasco is not unique in Indian cricket, it has happened before. I am sure the serious followers of Indian cricket will not be misled by such atrocious suggestions. The reason for penning these lines is to make the casual follower of cricket aware of exactly what has transpired over the years in the parade of Indian cricket.

Anil Kumble’s resignation from his post is an unique achievement in the annals of Indian cricket. He resigned. He was not omitted. He finished his first term of one year in style and splendour. The moment he was reinstated, he resigned. No one dropped him. He took his own decision on the context of the prevailing environment. A brave decision considering the enormous amount money and fame he was sacrificing. Not an easy decision. But then Anil Kumble is an exceptional individual.

Please do not allow yourself, dear reader,to get misled by what happened between the coach Greg Chappel and the captain Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly did not resign. He was omitted from the team and Chappel stayed on. I hope the reader would appreciate that there is an ocean of difference between resignation and omission. Kumble and Ganguly issues are different and not to be confused.

Relationship between coach or manager and captain has seen ups and downs over the years all over the cricketing world. Indian cricket certainly is no exception. But to relate that Bishan Singh Bedi, Ashok Mankad, Abbas Ali Baig, Sandeep Patil, Madanlal Sharma, Ajit Wadekar and Kapil Dev, to name a few coaches of the India team, were at loggerheads with the captains is stretching the issue a bit too far.

To find a similarity with the Kumble-fiasco is not the true picture. None of the above-mentioned Indian coaches were dropped. Nor did they resign from their post. All these gentlemen were appointed for a particular tour or for a specific period. At the end of the term, they just left. No one resigned. To resign one needs a different level of character.

Kumble happens to be the first India coach to have resigned on a point of principle: self-respect.

 Congrats, Kumble

Congratulations, Anil. Well done. For an upright person like you this is the most appropriate decision under the prevailing circumstances. Believe it or not, just a few days back I mentioned over All India Radio (AIR) in a live broadcast that if I know Anil Kumble the man, then he might contemplate resigning.

Just for the sake of fame and fortune, Kumble will not sacrifice his self respect. An erudite gentleman like him will never be a ‘yes man’. He resigned right on time. Great to find that we in India still have such conscientious men.

For about a year as coach, he has helped India to be highly consistent in all forms of the game. In Test cricket, which after all is the real test, India regained its number one position with Kumble as coach. But the moment he realized that to get along with a younger man he has to sacrifice his self-respect, he decided to go out in style. Head held high. Outstanding  attitude. Unique execution.

In India cricket unfortunately the three roles of captain, coach and selectors have over-lapped each other in a most awkward manner.  Ideally they have distinct roles to perform. And their responsibility is to carry out their own duties. But today in India it appears that some people instead of doing their own duty, wish to meddle in the work of others.

In this unhealthy atmosphere, there is bound to be ego clashes and conflicts. And that is exactly what has happened. It seems the captain cannot get along with the coach. A few days back, captain Virat Kohli mentioned that he had no problems with the coach. The fact is, if you really do not have a problem with anybody, do you go around the world shouting that you have no problems? By mentioning that he had no problems with coach Anil Kumble, captain Virat Kohli merely revealed that he was harbouring grievances against the senior man.

On the other extreme, Kumble did not say a word. Why should he? He had no problems, so he had no urge to say anything to anybody. This obviously is the natural thing to do. Kumble was given an opportunity by BCCI to carry out some responsibility and he concentrated only on that role only. Moreover he was extremely successful over the past year.

Sad to relate that today in Indian cricket it seems that the captain is the man in total authority. It appears that the student (captain) decides who should be his teacher (coach)! Even the examiners (the selectors) appear to be in awe of the student! To keep their own places, it seems the selectors are very concerned to keep the captain happy! This is a most unhealthy scenario.

For about three decades, Kumble has contributed to Indian cricket as a player, captain, administrator, mentor and coach. He has been associated with ICC in various responsible committees. He has been a rare talent being highly successful in every role. Never once did he try to draw attention to himself by resorting to controversial statements and actions.

I honestly doubt if we have anyone of his character and integrity to replace him. An unblemished individual left with his head held high. Kudos to you, Anil.

 A Tribute to Vinoo Mankad on his birth centenary               

“An all-rounder is a cricketer who is equally bad at both batting and bowling” was the observation of a cricket wit years ago. The idea was not entirely incorrect. Players who are not very proficient in either discipline are normally considered to be all-rounders.

Drawing on this issue, Sai Baba devotee Colonel Bose of Puttaparthi came to the conclusion that only a player who can be in the XI both for his batting ability as well as for his bowling skill can be regarded as a genuine all-rounder. Absolutely to the point, he was.

The erudite civil engineer, now the curator of the Parthi museum he helped to construct, relentlessly pursued the topic to assert that the genuine all-rounders were far too few. The majority were ‘bits and pieces’ players who were neither top quality batters nor outstanding bowlers. Some were of course magnificent in one of the two disciplines.

According to Col Bose’s logic, Abid Ali could well be an all-rounder for the Hyderabad team where he probably deserved a place both for his batsmanship as well as his bowling skills. But when representing India in Test matches he should be regarded as a medium pace bowler who could bat. His pace bowling was good enough to put him in the India Test XI of the 1970s but most certainly not his batting. Similarly, with Madanlal and Roger Binny among many others.

How would one rank Mohinder Amarnath and Ravi Shastri using the same logic? Shastri was an able batsman who could hold his own in any company. As a bowler, too, he may not have been a match-winner but was certainly a capable left-arm orthodox spinner in the defensive mould. During his playing career, he proved he was good enough to be in the Indian team both for his batting and bowling.

Mohinder made his Test debut as a medium pacer and captured vital wickets in the match. But he was certainly not a quality pace bowler in Test cricket. Yet, we must readily admit that he was a very intelligent bowler in one-day matches. Obviously, the nature of one-day matches is entirely different from Test matches. Hence the yardstick of evaluation differs substantially. Whereas Mohinder was an outstanding all-rounder in one-dayers, he would be considered primarily as a batter in Test cricket.

Now our vision opens up to see the contributions of Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny in an entirely different perspective. All of them were extremely effective in the one-dayers both with the bat as well as with the ball. So Col Bose’s logic stands very convincing. We can most certainly consider Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny among the prominent all-rounders in the Indian one-day teams.

Now let us turn the page back and discuss only Test cricket which after all is the actual TEST of a player. In Tests we generally rate Garfield Sobers as the ultimate all-rounder. No two opinions on that. Some of the greats who followed him were Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Learie Constantine, Vinoo Mankad, Keith Miller, Salim Durani, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev in earlier eras and more recently Jacques Kallis.

Outstanding players of the all-round calibre of Frank Worrel, Trevor Bailey, Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson, Chandu Borde, Mike Procter, Clive Rice among others also delighted us with their undoubted capabilities. Worrel’s languid elegance riveted our vision to his batting elegance. Little attention was paid to his bowling which was very effective whenever required by his strong team. Trevor Bailey was a disruptive influence to the opposition but to his own team he was an asset whether bowling or batting. Benaud and Davidson were considered primarily as outstanding bowlers but the batting strength of Australia rarely required their services. Whenever called upon to bat, they responded with valour and emerged victorious.

Chandu Borde was primarily a batsman for sure. But in the early 1960s, for a while he was a very capable leg spinner who helped India to win the series against Ted Dexter’s England. But his right shoulder injury finished his leg-spinning ability for ever. His exceptional all-round skills died an embryonic death.

Procter and Clive Rice did not get the opportunity to play enough. But in the limited scope they got, they showed the cricket world what they were capable of. Both were among the very best.

The most prominent all-rounders in the annals of cricket are worth their weight in gold. In the early decades of the last century, leg spinning South African all-rounder Aubrey Faulkner and England’s Wilfred Rhodes exhibited the intrinsic value of men who could bat and bowl with the best on view.

Then arrived on the scene the lissome figure from the Caribbean, Learie Constantine. Playing for a weak West Indies team, the magnificent all-round skills of Constantine made the world sit up and take notice. The ebony-skin fast bowler hurled the ball at fearsome speed at the batman’s throat and then rattled the stumps for good measure. Disdainful of coaching-manuals, he enjoyed smashing deliveries around the ground with audacious shots.

He was the first international cricketer to hit a six off a front foot square cut!   Hardened critics rubbed their eyes in disbelief, but gradually realized that Constantine was nature’s bounty to humanity. As if this was not enough he was considered to be the best ever all-round fielder. Truly he would rank among the best ever all-rounders. What would he have done if they had ODIs and T20s in his time boggles the imagination.

Keith Miller was another who was a natural athlete. The strikingly handsome fighter pilot of 2^nd world war fame had the world at his mercy. Soft as a kitten, he would roar like a tiger when needed. Batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy, authorship you name it and he was at the helm. Playing for a very strong Australian team, he never cared to concentrate unless it was imperative. And then in a crisis the real Miller would emerge to take the opposition by the scruff of the neck.

Salim Durani was a genius in whatever he decided to do. The handsome face and the lazy grace took our breath away. Time and again as he strum on his guitar, we heard the soft mellow tune of the bail dropping from the stumps. He was an artist with Afghan blood and blue eyes. Drew inspiration from nature. Had no clue about averages and stats. Never bothered about fame and fortune. A genuine artist who lived for the moment.  Never got his due recognition. Did not even bother.

Botham, Imran, Hadlee , Kapil  and Kallis are of recent vintage. All of them have been exposed to both Tests and ODIs and performed to the highest degree of excellence. Their worth have been recorded for posterity in no uncertain manner. For all time to come these outstanding contributors to cricket would have their names embossed in gilded letters.

Now, to come to two who paraded in two different orbits altogether. Vinoo Mankad played for a weak Indian Test team who were content just to draw matches. The fielding support was pathetic generally. Hardly any worthwhile total to rely on. Too much of petty provincialism influenced the environment. Sobers belonged to a West Indies team which dominated the cricket world. Strong batting and fielding support he had, while exceptional bowlers helped him from the other end. Inter island rivalries had subsided to a substantial extent.

Superbly athletic Sobers –sinuous grace and splendid grandeur – moved and performed like a champion. Rotund Vinoo Mankad did not have the athleticism of Sobers or his elegance, but he too performed like a champion. Sobers dwarfs Mankad with the sheer magic of his statistics but Mankad beats Sobers hands down in one significant aspect. Mankad has a Test named after him, while Sobers does not.

The Lord’s Test of 1952 is hailed by cricket connoisseurs as ‘Mankad’s Test’. In 1952 India crashed to a dreadful loss to England at Leeds in the 1^st Test being 4 wickets down for 0 at the start of the 2^nd innings! The Indian selectors, in their egoistic wisdom, had dropped the world’s foremost all-rounder Vinoo Mankad from the touring team for a petty reason. In a dramatic gesture, team manager Pankaj Gupta without bothering to inform anybody invited Vinoo Mankad, then in England to play club cricket, to play the following Test at Lord’s!

 Mankad opened the innings with a whirlwind 72, came back to take 5 wickets, returned with the bat to score a magnificent 184 and then bowled 24 overs for just 35 runs in a desperate and futile effort to save the match for his country. In the history of cricket no individual has been able to replicate such an awesome all-round performance in a Test. And all this from a man from the losing team!

Today when we sit to discuss the greatness of all-rounders, the name of Vinoo Mankad appears only in the footnotes. It is unjust to say the least. We need to repent at our own folly. Every Indian cricket follower should feel proud that the greatest all-round achievement in a Test match was achieved by a man of our own genes. Mankad is certainly among the greatest of all-rounders the world has ever seen.

Unfortunately in India we do not have any time for our cricketing grandfathers. Men not fit enough to tie their shoe laces are in power and are enjoying the benefits. The great pioneers have been forgotten while the petty agents are reaping fame and fortune. This is the actual picture of Indian cricket.