One time I was reading cricket comments on TOI and one comment by an Indian caught my eye:
He said that Kambli was more talented than Tendulkar but BCCI did not support him as much as they supported Tendulkar because of the following 2 reasons:
1) Kambli was dark-skinned; Tendulkar was not.
2) Kambli was from a lower caste; Tendulkar was from a higher caste.
He said that majority of Indians will always support a fair-skinned more than a dark-skinned; same with the caste.
these comments were in back of my mind but I dont know much about Kambli. Now today I read Blitz's Greaterst Batsmen Ever thread and Kambli's name is there at No. 3 in the best average at 10 matches (93.7)
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=136570
So Kambli was very very good when he started his career. So is it true what the Indian poster said: Kambli was more talented than Tendulkar? and are the reasons true that he did not get much support from the Indians? penalized for the things (skin and caste) of which he dont have any control over.
He said that Kambli was more talented than Tendulkar but BCCI did not support him as much as they supported Tendulkar because of the following 2 reasons:
1) Kambli was dark-skinned; Tendulkar was not.
2) Kambli was from a lower caste; Tendulkar was from a higher caste.
He said that majority of Indians will always support a fair-skinned more than a dark-skinned; same with the caste.
these comments were in back of my mind but I dont know much about Kambli. Now today I read Blitz's Greaterst Batsmen Ever thread and Kambli's name is there at No. 3 in the best average at 10 matches (93.7)
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=136570
So Kambli was very very good when he started his career. So is it true what the Indian poster said: Kambli was more talented than Tendulkar? and are the reasons true that he did not get much support from the Indians? penalized for the things (skin and caste) of which he dont have any control over.
Last edited by a moderator: