Tendulkar Is Surer When He Is Defending

The argument, as I understand it, is that whenever Sachin Tendulkar starts to think about blocking everything, he gets out. I don't think this is true. He gets out far more often when he's playing shots. I suppose people think that getting out for 20 in 80 balls is far worse than getting out for 55 in 80 balls when you are trying to save a Test Match. The story for the England tour for Tendulkar was the story of pretty, strokeful innings (until the Oval Test, where he played a cussed innings) usually followed by an unforced error because he played one shot too many. This tweet from the blogger Mahek Vyas encapsulates the dominant view about this matter.

"8(43), 62(66), 10(32) The 3 phases of Tendulkar's innings. No prizes for guessing in which phase he looked least likely to get out."

The following is based on my recollection and Cricinfo's ball by ball commentary.



0 (0) to 8(42), Day 3
Towards the end of the day yesterday, Tendulkar decided to "shut shop" (as commentators like to say) and play for stumps in the final hour of the day. He played out overs 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38 without troubling the scorers. He played 35 balls in that period, and played 2 false shots - one, a play and miss off Peter Siddle off the last ball of the 34th over, and then, an inside edge past the stumps for 4 off Ben Hilfenhaus off the last ball of the 39th. 2 false shots in 42 balls. This includes a period when he had just come in to bat.

From 8(42) to 70 (109) - 62(67), Day 4
On the 4th morning, Tendulkar's approach was different, he was willing to drive and cut outside off stump, and even played one of his signature upper cuts (less convincingly than usual) off James Pattinson. This was the period in which he scored 62(67). During this period, he flashed and missed outside off stump off the 5th ball of the 43rd over. He did this again off the third ball of the 45th. On both occasions, Ben Hilfenhaus induced the false shot. Off the first ball of the 57th over, bowled by Peter Siddle, Tendulkar came forward and pushed just a little bit too firmly. The ball hit the inside edge and then his pad. On the 4th ball of the 66th over, the same thing happened again. James Pattinson was the bowler. This time the inside edge went behind square on the leg side (the drive was aimed into the off side) for a single.

From 70 (109) to 80 (141) - 10(32), Day 4
In this period, the general sense amongst the people I follow on twitter seems to be that Tendulkar went into his shell. Yet, he produced 6 scoring shots out of 15 balls from Michael Clarke. He missed one ball from Peter Siddle that was drifting down the leg side (5th ball of the 74th over). It cost Tendulkar a couple of runs, but it was basically a free hit and there was no risk of LBW. He produced 1 false shot - the one that dismissed him. He didn't cover the line of the ball and it kissed his outside edge on its way Michael Hussey at slip past Brad Haddin's fumbling gloves.

Despite appearing far more secure during the stroke filled phase of his innings, Tendulkar made 4 clear errors during those 67 balls from the start of the 4th days play. Even counting just the clear errors, he was less error prone during his defensive phases (8 from 42 and 10 from 32, 18 from 74 in all, 3 errors) than he was in his attacking phase.

So if that prize is still up for grabs, I'll take it, because I guessed that the middle phase was the riskiest one.

There's more uncertainty associated with attacking batting. Every time Tendulkar played a drive at a ball that wasn't a half volley, he was taking a risk. All it would have taken for him to get into trouble would be for one ball to misbehave beyond his capacity to adjust to it off the wicket. When a batsman attacks, especially off the front foot, he is taking a risk - he has to commit to the shot early and he has to play the ball away from the pad. On the other hand, when he was defending, he was watching every ball until the last possible moment before playing it, or leaving it. There was less chance. In the phase when he was defending, especially on the third evening, he was taking no risks.

Could he have gotten a really good ball and gotten out last night? Yes of course. He nearly did. But that doesn't make it a better tactic to attack to bowling all the time.

Tendulkar's dismissal was against the run of play. It was the text book definition of a dismissal that came against the run of play. He did not bring it upon himself. In fact, he did exactly the opposite. He demonstrably cut down the risks he was taking, and played fewer false shots in the period when he was defending, than in the period when he was attacking.

At this point, you must be wondering - why would a batsman attack at all? There are good reasons to attack from time to time - to try to hit decent balls for runs rather than wait for something on the pads or a half volley or a rank long hop. In situations where the opposition doesn't have runs to play with, attacking pushes them back, makes them defend more, have fewer players in catching positions. It also has an effect on some bowlers, because bowlers as a rule hate to concede quick runs. But in situations where the fielding side has plenty of runs to play with, attacking can only go so far. It is not a coincidence that teams with large leads rarely concede 5-6 an over for long periods of time despite using attacking fields.

Even if a batsman is not attacking, it helps to keep taking singles (which Tendulkar did), and try not to take on the responsibility of facing entire overs. But there are times when playing out entire overs may be merited.

This is why it makes no sense to keep saying that a batsman should play according to the "merit of the ball". The merit of the ball depends not merely on its line and length, but on the situation.

A long innings in the face of this kind of lead is always going to be something of a conjuring trick - built on quiet phases and attacking phases - different episodes in which the exact same line and length will be treated very differently. If you think about VVS Laxman's 281 at Kolkata, an innings played against a similarly monumental first innings deficit, you will find that the most attacking phases were also the most error prone ones. They were also the most uplifting ones for the spectators.

Tendulkar is a superb, professional batsman. He is technically brilliant and, as the evidence of the Sydney Test shows, well equipped to both defend and attack. He may get out once or twice a year to innocuous bowlers. But his approach is always well thought out. After 306 Test innings, he knows what he is doing. We needn't accept this simply because he has played 186 Tests, but we should at least look at the evidence carefully before asserting that his methods are wrong.

The claim that Tendulkar looked more likely to get out while he was defending in the 2nd innings at Sydney is not true. As I have tried to show, it does not withstand scrutiny. The only way it can be justified is by claiming that playing an attacking shot involves lesser risk than playing it defensively, or leaving it.