SACH A WONDERFUL JOURNEY

[email protected] (G Unnikrishnan, DHNS)
December 24, 2012

Sachin_wonderful

March 27, 1994. That day will always remain seminal in Indian cricket history. It was on that day India found their and world's finest opening batsman in 50-over cricket at Eden Park, Auckland.

Sachin Tendulkar smashed a 48-ball 82 on that day, beginning a long 18-year stint at the pole position after having made his debut five years earlier. Innumerable records have been set during that journey, and some of them will never be broken.

The glitz of those numbers, however, masks two elements that made Tendulkar the most efficient one-day batsman of all time — adaptability and ability to withstand pressure of expectations from a billion fans for whom failure -- of Tendulkar and the team -- was not an option.

From 1994 to 2000 Tendulkar was at his peak of fitness and abilities, and there were no bowlers in the world who didn't face the wrath of his willow; it was classy and eye-catching at the same time.

He scored 8220 runs from 198 matches at 45.66 with 27 hundreds in that seven years, and it was that period that really converted Tendulkar into a household name and a brand worth millions.

Tendulkar had contemporaries like Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, Sanath Jayasuriya and Saeed Anwar who opened the innings, but none of them controlled a team's fortunes like the Mumbaikar. None of them had to enter the field in the knowledge that a personal failure would more likely end up in team's failure. It might have been immense pressure for one individual to bare. But Tendulkar stayed calm all the while.

There never was an occasion when he shied away from the responsibility or complained about the perils of one-man efforts. Tendulkar had to remain in that high-pressure boiling container not for just one series or a few months, but for years together.

There was no relief point. There was no one to share his burden. He couldn't have been blamed for feeling like the loneliest man on the planet because few could understand his situation. He was India's sole hope. Perhaps, those two 'Desert Storm' innings (143 and 134) against Australia at Sharjah in 1998 was also a reflection of India's desperation and dependence on him.

But in the late 90s and early 2000s emerged a set of cricketers who finally set Tendulkar free from that lonley place. Sourav Ganguly evolved into a fine opener in his own right, giving long company to Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid overcame his limitations as a limited-over batsman to score more than 10000 runs, once Ganguly was done with his career Virender Sehwag, a malevolent force at top, came to partner Tendulkar, and then others like Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Singh Dhoni emerged at different times as India finally became a one-day super power.

Along with it, Tendulkar's role has also changed. He was no longer the lone match-winner, he became one of the match-winners among a host of that breed. It needed a change of mindset as well by Tendulkar to accept that shared significance in the team set up, and he adapted quite beautifully.

As a batsman, he was no longer required to carry India alone and a couple of injuries, most noticeably a tennis elbow, made it mandatory for Tendulkar to revisit his approach to batting. Some great players like Viv Richards never changed their methods, but here Tendulkar eschewed the ego factor and transformed into a different batsman post 2000.

Those twinkling forays down the pitch, a common feature of a Tendulkar innings in the 90s, particularly against spinners, were curtailed and shots over the top of the infield too became a rarity, and percentage cricket took over. The Tendulkar Mark 2 wasn't adrenaline-rising, but he was clinical cold and only more effective. There wasn't a batsman who was more aware than Tendulkar of the gaps on the field and angles.

Still, the impish kid in him would awake at times, largely in the shape of that upper cuts and paddle sweeps, shots he developed into a major part of his arsenal in the later part of his career.

In the new millenium, he amassed 8527 runs from 200 one-dayers at 48.17 with 22 hundreds, reflecting his steady impact and relevance even while the one-dayers underwent structural changes in the last decade.

The 85 against Pakistan at Mohali in the 2011 World Cup semifinals underscored that. Saeed Ajmal tormented him with doosras, and Pakistan fielders dropped him five times on that evening, but he never gave the fight away. For sometime, the clock ticked back to the 90s, and Tendulkar became India's pressure carrier. And like in the 90s, he soaked in the pressure, and India won. It was an ugly scrap, but it was also a shining pointer to the secret of his success.




Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 15,2020

Kolkata, May 15: Veteran Bengali author Debesh Roy, who was conferred the Sahitya Akademi award for his novel 'Teesta Parer Brittanto', died at a private hospital in Kolkata on Thursday, his family members said.

Roy was 84 and he is survived by his son. His wife had died earlier.

He was admitted to the hospital near his residence at Baguihati, in the eastern fringes of the city, on Wednesday after having symptoms like sodium potasium imbalance, sugar problem and breathing problem, his family members said.

He suffered a massive cardiac arrest and died at 10.50 PM.

A regular contributor to a number of Bengali dailies, he was a staunch critic of the attacks on liberals by in the country in recent times and attended protest meetings despite his failing health.

He was born in Pabna in present-day Bangladesh on December 17, 1936. He had five decades of career as a writer.

Besides Teesta Parer Britanta', he will be remembered for books like Borisaler Jogen Mondal , Manush Khun Kore Keno and Samay Asamayer Brittanto . His first book was Jajati.

His last rites will be performed tomorrow.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 7,2020

Washington, Jan 7: Facebook will ban deepfake videos ahead of the US elections but the new policy will still allow heavily edited clips so long as they are parody or satire, the social media giant said Tuesday.

Deepfake videos are hyper-realistic doctored clips made using artificial intelligence or programs that have been designed to accurately fake real human movements.

In a blog published following a Washington Post report, Facebook said it would begin removing clips that were edited--beyond for clarity and quality--in ways that "aren't apparent to an average person" and could mislead people.

Clips would be removed if they were "the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges, replaces or superimposes content onto a video, making it appear to be authentic," the statement from Facebook vice-president Monika Bickert said.

However, the statement added: "This policy does not extend to content that is parody or satire, or video that has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words."

US media noted the new guidelines would not cover videos such as the 2019 viral clip -- which was not a deepfake -- of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that appeared to show her slurring her words.

Facebook also gave no indication on the number of people assigned to identify and take down the offending videos, but said videos failing to meet its usual guidelines would be removed, and those flagged clips would be reviewed by teams of third-party fact-checkers -- among them AFP.

The news agency has been paid by the social media giant to fact-check posts across 30 countries and 10 languages as part of a program starting in December 2016, and including more than 60 organisations.

Content labeled "false" is not always removed from newsfeeds but is downgraded so fewer people see it -- alongside a warning explaining why the post is misleading.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.