Sachin Tendulkar autobiography - Excerpts on match-fixing, Multan incident with Rahul Dravid and more

Right from the time Sachin Tendulkar announced the launch of his autobiography, Playing It My Way, everyone had their fair share of incidents that they wanted answers to from the master batsman. A lot pertaining to his cricket and some controversies. Have they been answered? Let's find out with excerpts from the book.

1. Ahmedabad Test v New Zealand in 1999. Why this Test? Because of the controversial decision not to enforce the follow on. Questions had been raised about match-fixing surrounding this match including reports that suggested that it was mentioned in an ACSU class for young cricketers citing this particular match as an example of match-fixing.

Sachin says: "At Ahmedabad we scored a mammoth 583 runs in the first innings and, despite bowling the opposition out for 308, did not enforce the follow-on. This was a unanimous decision taken in consultation with the fast bowlers, who were tired after an exhausting first-innings effort and needed some rest before bowling again. We won the series 1-0 and then went on to win the ODI series 3-2. It may not have been ideal preparation for the tour to Australia that started at the end of the month, but a series win never does any harm."

2. Multan Test v Pakistan in 2004. Why this match? Rahul Dravid, the Indian captain's decision to declare with Sachin on 194 caused huge controversy and sparked debate about a rift between Dravid and Sachin. What happened between the two after that?

Sachin says: "The following morning, Rahul finally came to me and said he heard I was upset and wanted to have a chat. I informed him that I was indeed upset and there was no way I would pretend otherwise. I asked him what the thinking was behind declaring at the time he did. It wasn't as if we were pressing for a win, and one over wouldn't have made much difference. We had agreed to a plan at tea and I was doing exactly as I had been told. Rahul said that the call was taken with the interests of the team in mind. It was important to demonstrate to the Pakistanis that we meant business and were keen to win. I wasn't convinced. First, I said to him that I was batting for the team as well. Yes, I had scored 194 , but the 194 was meant to help the team and it was my individual contribution to the team's cause. so to say that the decision was taken in the best interests of the team wasn't altogether correct. I reminded him of what had happened in Sydney less than a month earlier, when we had both been batting on the fourth evening and Sourav had sent out two or three messages asking when we should declare and Rahul had carried on batting. The two situations were comparable and, if anything, the Sydney declaration was far more significant and may have cost us a Test match and series victory. If Rahul was so keen to show intent here in Multan, he should have done the same in Sydney. Rahul didn't say anything to this and stated that I would surely get another opportunity to score a double hundred. I disagreed, saying it would not be the same. I would have to bat from zero to score a double century and would not be starting my innings at 194. Before I brought the conversation to a close, I assured Rahul that the incident would have no bearing on my involvement on the field, but off the field I would prefer to be left alone for a while to come to terms with what had happened.

Despite the incident, I am glad to say Rahul and I remain good friends, and even on the field our camaraderie remained intact until the end of our careers. We continued to have some good partnerships and neither our cricket nor our friendship was affected."

4. Match-fixing: Will Sachin open up about one of the biggest controversies to have hit cricket and Indian cricket, in particular. The match-fixing imbroglio rings loud till date and it was reported to have soured Sachin's relationship with his long-time captain, Mohammad Azharuddin.

Sachin says: "India started well under Sourav, winning the ODI series 3-2 against south Africa in March 2000. But soon afterwards cricket plummeted to a low in the wake of the match-fixing scandal. The credibility of the game had been compromised and I found the revelations about matches being thrown for money distasteful and disgusting. The whole thing was repulsive and what was seriously worrying was that fans had started to lose faith and the integrity of our sport was in doubt. We desperately needed to bring credibility back to the game and we hoped that we could do so in the course of playing the Australians at home in a much-anticipated Test series in February-March 2001. It would allow fans to move away from the sordid tales of corruption and focus on the real thing: quality Test cricket."

5. Sachin and his Ferrari woes: In 2003, Sachin Tendulkar was in the limelight for non-cricketing news. He had been gifted a Ferrari car by automobile company, FIAT, after he equalled Don Bradman's tally of centuries in Test cricket. Tendulkar had applied for waiver of customs duty (almost 120% the value of the car) and was granted the same by the government. The issue was that it was not 'legal' because the car had not been given as a prize for a tournament. The government promptly changed the law that gave them the power to allow persons waiver of customs duty on a need to need basis.

No mention of it.

6. Monkeygate. One of the biggest controversies that had Sachin as one of the main protagonists during India's tour of Australia. The details of this incident are well known.

Sachin says: "Anil Kumble (the then captain) and I took the lead and it was unanimously decided that we would boycott the tour if Bhajji's ban was upheld.

I want to state very clearly that the incident arose because Andrew Symonds had been continually trying to provoke Bhajji and it was inevitable that the two would have an altercation at some point. While walking up to Bhajji to try to calm things down, I heard him say Teri maa ki (Your mother) to Symonds. It is an expression we often use in North India to vent our anger and to me it was all part of the game. That was the start of the controversy that almost caused the tour to be called off.

I thought the matter had ended with Bhajji's dismissal and later I was surprised when I was told that the Australians had lodged a formal complaint at the end of that day's play, apparently alleging that Bhajji had called Symonds a 'monkey', which was being treated as a racial insult.

Mind you, there is little doubt in my mind that we would have drawn had it not been for what seemed to us to be mistakes by the umpires and some rather unsportsmanlike conduct by a few of the Australian players. While it was distressing to hear that Symonds felt he had been racially abused, it was equally distressing to observe what Bhajji was going through. As far as we were concerned, he had retaliated in the face of provocation, which was par for the course in an Australia-India cricket match.

The hearing was conducted rather strangely, it seemed to me, with the Australians and Indians asked to testify separately, without the other side being present in the room. This certainly didn't improve the trust between the Indian and Australian players. I was the principal witness because I was batting at the other end with Bhajji and I recounted the incident to the match referee in detail. Mike Procter did not look very convinced by our version of events and we found it surprising that he asked us to wait in our dressing room till well past midnight. The controversy had started to cast a pall over the series.

After the hearing, there was serious ill-feeling between the two teams and we felt betrayed by the turn of events.

I stated exactly what I had heard and seen and also said that I had taken exception to us being labelled 'liars' by the match referee, Mike Procter, who had mentioned in his statement that 'I believe one group is telling the truth'. That he banned Bhajji for three Test matches seemed to us to show which group, in his opinion, was lying. It is never a pleasant thing to be called a liar and I was extremely angry.

I must reiterate that we were very serious about the boycott. If Bhajji's ban was upheld, it would mean an acceptance of guilt and imply that Bhajji had racially abused Symonds, which he most certainly had not.

We were fully prepared to accept the consequences of walking out of a tour, knowing that such an action might have resulted in the ICC banning the Indian team. The issue was now bigger than just Bhajji. Indians all over the world felt slighted and we felt it was our responsibility to stand up for our cause. After the game a number of bottles of champagne were opened in the dressing room and one was also sent across to the touring Indian media contingent, who had played a very important role in standing behind us during the Sydney controversy.

Disclaimer: This is not a book review. We merely picked out relevant excerpts to try and find out what Sachin Tendulkar has to say, in his book, about topics that many were interested in knowing about prior to the release of the book.