By Andy Bull from The Guardian.com
He has a Test average approaching 60, and outscored
everybody in international cricket last year, but his off-field appeal has been
even more of an inspiration
I remember very well the moment I first fell for Kumar
Sangakkara. It wasn’t at Lord’s, or any other cricket ground, but in a sideroom
at the offices of the Terrence Higgins Trust in King’s Cross. And he wasn’t
playing a cover drive, or diving to take a catch, but interviewing HIV and Aids
workers about their day jobs. Sangakkara was, still is, an ambassador for the
ICC’s Think Wise
campaign, run in partnership with Unaids and Unicef. He had asked the ICC
to arrange a roundtable chat with experts in the field. A couple of journalists
had been invited along to provide, I assumed, a little positive publicity, to
watch him pose for a photo, pass on a couple platitudes, then pop off in his
limousine.
Turned out Sangakkara couldn’t have cared less whether the
press were there or not, and had little interest in talking cricket. Instead,
he spent an hour at the head of a long table, listening to representatives from
various charities, some of whom had only a vague idea who he was. “I am here to
learn,” he told them, “I am very privileged to be here among you, to talk to
you and, more than that, to listen to you. Because when I do put my face out
there for the ICC I would like to be informed as much as possible, to be able
to back up what I say with factual knowledge.” The only photos he posed for
were the ones the staff asked him to be in. “Whatever you do it is not about
doing it in front of 20 cameras,” he said. “It is when there are no cameras and
no one there to write about it or talk about it.”
Afterwards, I asked Sangakkara why he had spent so long
inside. “If I do something I make sure I try and seriously commit to it. With
time, with effort, with knowledge, whichever way I can.” Later that same
summer, he gave his famous Spirit of Cricket lecture, besides which all others
since have paled in comparison. I was there then too, lucky enough to be in the
audience to hear him say: “My loyalty will be to the ordinary Sri Lankan fan …
they are my foundation, they are my family. I will play my cricket for them.
Their spirit is the true spirit of cricket. With me are all my people. I am
Tamil, Sinhalese, Muslim and Burgher. I am a Buddhist, a Hindu, a follower of
Islam and Christianity. I am today, and always, proudly Sri Lankan.” By the
time he had finished, I was completely smitten.
Sangakkara has announced that he will retire from
international cricket later this summer. This although his game is, and has
been for some time, on a high plateau, one approached by only the very finest
players in history. Last year he made 2,868 runs in international cricket, at
an average of 53. No one has ever scored more in a calendar year. This year he
became the first man in history to score centuries in four consecutive ODI
innings, and during the World Cup too. At the age of 37, Sangakkara sometimes
seems to have solved cricket, as a computer solves checkers or a bright child a
Rubik’s Cube.
Time was when they said Sangakkara’s problem was that he was
such a better batsman at home, and of course he is, but he will still finish
with (all-format) averages of 49 in Australia, 49 in New Zealand 44 in England,
43 in India. He is the only man in each of Test cricket’s top ten lists of highest
averages, most
runsand most
centuries. Which means that he’s one of the greatest batsmen of all time by
any measure you’d care to take. Another year like this last one, and he would
sit second to Sachin Tendulkar as Test cricket’s leading run-scorer, and
overtake Don Bradman as the man who has scored the most Test double-hundreds.
But he’s not interested. He says he would have quit sooner if his great mate
Mahela Jayawardene hadn’t beaten him to it. He thought the team would suffer if
they both left at the same time.
“I’ve been told if I play another year or two years, I could
score another 1000 runs. I might be the second highest run scorer, or I might
be able to break the Don’s double-century record. But if you really think about
it, if that’s the only reason you want to prolong your career, then it is
really time to say, ‘thank you very much,’” Sangkkara said. “I’ve always prided
myself on performing well for the side as an individual, but at the end of the
day I want to be able to look my team-mates in the eye and say I went out there
because I really wanted to do well for the side, and it was nothing to do with
individual records. I can do that right now.”
A gent to the very end. Seems that Sangakkara is surely one
of those rare players cricket fans all around the world can agree on. A shock
then, to see one of my very favourite contemporary cricket writers, Osman
Samiuddin, admit in print: “I am not a fan of Kumar Sangakkara. I never have
been.” Too perfect, too earnest, too bloodless, Osman explained. He was more of
a Mahela man.
We all have our favourites, especially those of us who fell
in love with the game through watching it from beyond the boundary. I can list
those of many of my friends in the game, and I love what each person’s choice
says about them (Rob Smyth & Martin McCague, Lawrence Booth & Allan
Lamb, Emma John & Mike Atherton, Andrew Miller & Angus Fraser, Gideon
Haigh & Chris Tavaré, Kevin Mitchell & Doug Walters. I could go on). If
pushed, I’d plump for Shahid Afridi, with Peter Trego and Sangakkara both in
close running for the second spot.
Osman’s feelings about Sanga are the flip side of that
favouritism. This is one of those cases, just as common, but expressed less
often, where a fan feels impervious to the charms of an indisputably great
player. Just as we all have our own heroes, so most of us have our own
blindspots, players who leave us cold, however adored they are, however
acclaimed they may be. Jacques Kallis is a common one. So is Graeme Smith. Must
be something about South Africans. For me, it was Ricky Ponting, whose batting
always felt so charmless, so ruthlessly efficient, that it seemed to me to be
almost too mechanical to admire. Wrong, I know, but there was just no getting
around it.
With Sanga, I bend the other way. I can understand the
criticisms. Certainly he was once a merciless sledger, and perhaps that made him something of a
hypocrite. They say too that he has a politician’s sensibility, and loves to
sweet talk the media. If they’re right, it worked with me. I can swallow all
that and smile. In my eyes, to my ears, the man is a marvel, and the game will
be poorer for his going.
No comments:
Post a Comment