On Bradman’s centenary year, it is interesting to study the difference between how Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Gary Sobers handled their fame and the legacy.
Even a cursory look reveals a glaring contrast. The Don comes across as a person who acts and behaves as if he is royalty and makes his displeasure to mingle obvious whereas Sobers comes across as earthy and not beyond soiling his hands.
Nothing illustrates this more than the incidents involving Lara and Tendulkar.
When Lara broke the batting record, Sir Gary Sobers was at the ground and had no reservations going up to the pitch along with multitude of spectators to congratulate him. Now here is one man who is simple and informal to the core.
In sharp contrast, there is the incident of Don granting an audience to Tendulkar as if he (the Don) was royalty. His whole attitude was pompous and his compliments condescending.
One cannot shake off the impression that the Don was overtly concerned about leaving an unsullied legacy. The trust that runs Don’s estate was particular that all of Don’s actions and words carried the same significance of say a Dalai Lama’s words and deeds to his followers.
Sadly, to some including this blogger, it made Don appear a sanctimonious ass.
Given a choice, one would rather leave everything to shake Sir Garfield Sobers hand. He is the perfect example of a cricketing legend comfortable with his fame and levelheaded enough to acknowledge to himself that he is a mere mortal.
As I was saying, Don is no Dalai Lama nor is he Sobers. What is your take?