The socio economic conditions of an era play a huge role in shaping the attitude of a player on the field.
Gavaskar was brought up in times when India had just won her freedom and now faced challenges that were much
bigger than the colonial rule itself.
Acute shortage of food grains, widespread poverty and religious hostilities.
It was a time when officially the govt urged people to forego one meal a day. Can we even imagine such a thing today?
In the backdrop of such grave times, imagine the single most significant statistic in test cricket history - 13 centuries that Gavaskar has against the then mighty Windies. It’s an unbelievable feat and each of those hundreds instilled a sense of liberation in the nation.
Needless to say it came against bowlers that were the most fearsome of that era.
Just think if we were born in those challenging times where our country was insignificant to the outside world that was starting to grow by leaps and bounds, where would we look for a national hero that might help us to rise above our mediocrity? I use the word mediocre because belonging to a middle class family, the Gavaskar story is very much the same as Sachin except that he never had an Achrekar or a brother like Ajit who devoted his life to his younger brother's game.
Each century that Gavaskar scored would have given us so much pride because it would show the world that India was not only about rope tricks. And it actually did. Talking to people of that era, they say that it gave them the sense of belonging, achievement and most of all inspiration.
In a middle class society where self perseverance was the way of life and flamboyance was unheard of, how could we have expected Gavaskar to hit the ball in the air? Each and every ball faced would have been as important to him back then as his own life. A whole nation went out to bat with him with their share of problems , hoping that somehow the runs from Gavaskar would heal their wounds.
How could he have then, attempted a cross batted slog to mid wicket as most of the T20 batters do.
On the other hand, Sachin signified an angry young India. that can afford to take risks and that won’t sit back and carry the burden of a conservative market economy. An India that prepared to take on the world in every field and had started to ask the question of 'Why' to every restriction imposed in their paths.
Hence when Sachin stepped on the field in the late 80's and early 90's, mind you still carrying millions of aspirations, he did so for a country far more liberal in thought and action as compared to the Gavaskar era. Who knows, maybe that's the source of the aggression and freedom of play even for a born genius.
Mind you, batting is still a one ball game whether it’s the Gavaskar era or sachin's but it’s about the difference in approach and the possible reasons for that.
The point here is not the lame question of who is better, Sachin or Gavaskar. It is about a logic far more deeper than that. It’s about the prevalent conditions in a society and the solid family upbringing that plays a huge role in the making of the individual we eventually become.
It’s about not just blindly mocking the way Gavaskar played, but understanding the reason for the solidarity he showed at the wicket.
It’s about putting a thought about India's position not only in cricket but in other areas in the Gavaskar era which was very different as compared to when Sachin went out to bat. Why did the former had to be that extra cautious on the field and minimize the risk factor? Many say that maybe he played selfishly. I say he is a legend who ensured every time he batted, the world took notice. In spite of the open wickets, lightning quick bowling and legendary oppositions he won't budge from the crease. He will toil that extra mile to prove the world that India had arrived.
