A great performance remains great, whatever the result

Should a great innings lose some of its aura if the team ends up losing? Conversely, should the halo over an outstanding knock get brighter if the team ends up winning? Basically I don't think this should be the case, either way. Whether a team wins or loses, a great performance should be remembered just the same for what it always will be - a great performance.

Much, for example, has been made of the fact that every time Gundappa Viswanath got a hundred, India never lost the Test match. Viswanath scored 14 hundreds and India won four of the Tests and drew ten. No doubt it was a commendable feat and spoke much about Viswanath's ability to rise to the big occasion. But the point is would the value of the hundreds have diminished had India lost any of the games?

By the same yardstick, it is frequently pointed that though Sunil Gavaskar had scored 34 hundreds, India still lost many of the Tests in which he got the centuries. For that matter, India lost a Test in Pakistan in 1978 despite Gavaskar getting a hundred in each innings. Gavaskar's hundreds helped India win six Tests while five were lost. As many as 20 of the Tests were drawn. It must be mentioned here that Gavaskar scored a century in each innings three times.

Lately, I have been hearing much the same argument regarding two of Sachin Tendulkar's best known innings - his 155 not out against Australia at Chennai in 1998 and his 136 against Pakistan at the same venue a year later. India won the game against Australia but lost the match against Pakistan. Close followers of the game - and of Tendulkar's career - have frequently remarked that because his effort against Pakistan was not crowned with success, the innings lost some of its shine. As an eyewitness, I would rate both the knocks equally high on quality, irrespective of the result of the match.

Under the circumstances, can a player be blamed for the loss of a match? After all, he has done his best, what were the other team members doing? Arguably Gavaskar's finest hundred - the 101 at Old Trafford in 1974 - ended up on the losing side. But can the result negate the outstanding achievement of getting a hundred in adverse conditions, on a green top, when the weather was bitterly cold and in swirling winds, against the bowling of Bob Willis, Chris Old, Mike Hendrick and Derek Underwood?

As I said, India lost a Test at Karachi in 1978-79 when Gavaskar got a century in each innings. Four years later, he defied Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz and Abdul Qadir in carrying his bat for 127 and yet India lost by ten wickets. If after getting two hundreds in a match, after carrying his bat through the innings and after getting a brilliant, courageous hundred in alien conditions, the side still finishes on the losing side, does it reduce the significance of the knock? In fact, in my book, there is something heroic in performing gallantly in a losing cause, in playing the Horatio role to the hilt.

The two other occasions when a Gavaskar century could not prevent defeat were against Australia at Brisbane and Perth in 1977-78. Incidentally the margins of defeat were 16 runs and two wickets. For that matter, arguably Gavaskar's greatest ever knock - the 96 in his final Test innings against Pakistan at Bangalore in 1987 - also ended up on the losing side. But again, does the result negate the achievement of a batsman who according to one report, "gave a masterly exhibition of technique, temperament and judgement on a turning pitch of eccentric bounce which allowed even an off spinner to bowl bouncers."

Viswanath's hundreds which led to India winning on four occasions were no less gallant. Against West Indies at Madras in 1979, on a wicket of exaggerated bounce, the Karnataka artist got 124 when the next highest score in the innings was 33. Two years later, at Melbourne, he scored 114 on a dicey pitch, with the next best score in the innings was 25. His heroic 112 at Port of Spain in 1976 paved the way for a memorable victory when India scored 406 for four - still the highest ever score to win a Test match. And of course the first time India won with the help of a Viswanath hundred was against West Indies at Calcutta in 1974-75. But the point is that even had India lost these matches, the significance of Viswanath's achievements would not - or at least should not - be diminished.

As I said, there is something in battling it out alone in a heroic cause that catches one's attention. Polly Umrigar scored 12 hundreds, with a highest score of 223. But his greatest century was the unbeaten 172 he scored against West Indies at Port of Spain in 1962, hitting Wesley Hall, Gary Sobers, Charlie Stayers, Frank Worrell and Lance Gibbs with a fury that defied belief, even as India lost by seven wickets. Vinoo Mankad scored two double hundreds, both of which set up Indian victories. But he is most remembered for his pyrotechnics at Lord's in 1952 when he hammered Alec Bedser, Fred Trueman and Jim Laker for 184 in a match which India went down by eight wickets. Interestingly enough, these are the only two occasions when an Indian cricketer has scored a century and also taken five wickets in an innings in a Test match.

The point is that the result of a match should not negate (or even upgrade) any notable achievement. Performances that are instrumental in the side registering a victory or heroics that fail to prevent defeat both deserve praise for what they are - outstanding feats.