His autobiography has already beaten the sales of those by Steve Jobs. He is in the news yet again even after biding cricket goodbye but how are we ought to believe a man now who has been hiding the truth all through his career and chose to tell it out, loud and clear only when he had said good bye to the game.
Master Blaster, Sachin Tendulkar, the game’s God with his autobiography, Playing It My Way has already raised many eyeballs, letting out small little secrets which only he knew. Claiming when and how what went wrong.
One of the highlights of the autobiography is the name, Greg Chappel. The man who during his tenure as Indian cricket team coach remained under media glares for taking Indian cricket backwards, ruining the game of many a players. But who knew Sachin Tendulkar, the man who has got everybody’s respect hadn’t been spared either.
Questions have been raised on Kapil Dev’s stunt as coach too when Tendulkar himself was leading the team in 99-2000.
There shall be many a confessions too but the one that for now that has come to fore is that of sacking Tendulkar himself from the captaincy, without his knowing obviously that left him shell shocked.
My point is had Sachin come out with all these revelation as and when they were happening to him, and to Indian cricket, wouldn’t it have saved careers of a few players i.e Irfan Pathan who was made more of batsmen than bowler during Greg Chappel’s coaching tenure with Indian Cricket, which eventually over the years led to his decline, he now already having very gleam chances of being back in the national side.
Pacer Zaheer Khan too came out with the revelation how Greg had tried to dictate terms to him and warned him how he isn’t going to play for India as long as Greg stays the coach.
Why didn’t Sachin speak when the infamous Symonds- Harbhajan spat took place? Why did he chose to say it now when all is done and dusted. Everyone expected from someone of Tendulkar’s stature to speak up then but the man in picture has only chosen to write and say about it years after.
It’s human nature to be curious but doesn’t curiosity kill the cat? We as humans would be curious what had actually happened then but didn’t it matter much more at that time than now.
Also, why should we take all that he says in his book as it comes? We as those who see beneath the curtain must doubt all only to believe it later.
As for the book, because the author has chose to play it his way, I as a reader have also chose to play it my way too. I am not reading the book.
