Boria Majumdar

It was 4.30 am in Melbourne on that very special day in August 2006. Yet, we were all glued to the television set watching what transpired to be Andre Agassi's farewell match at the US Open. With each second serve by Benjamin Becker the expectancy went up-may be the cross court or the famous down the line will be unleashed for one final time, may be the veteran still had some magic left. However, when Agassi continued to miss routine returns the may be's turned the other way: may be the hand eye co-ordination was not up to the mark any more, may be the Baghdatis match had finally taken its toll, may be it will be B Becker who will script his swansong turning the clock full cycle, may be every great thing had to come to an end. And it did. Agassi lost a hard fought third round match against his un-fancied opponent and ended what in hindsight appears a miracle career in modern tennis. With every tear drop that he shed soon after, he endeared himself more to his fans who wept with him, pleaded him to stay on at the court for a few final minutes and wanted one last autograph. This is what a farewell should be like, the last hurrah for a real champion who had given tennis a lot to cheer about.

That Agassi will lose at some stage in the tournament was a foregone conclusion. None, not even his most ardent of supporters had thought that he will make the final like he did in 2005. And with a bad back, the end was near. However, that it will be a real spectacle when 24,000 fans wept and cheered him on was simply unbelievable. Even Becker looked like a convict having just performed a criminal act and hardly celebrated his first ever fourth round advance in the Open.

And this is where the mind turns to Saurav Ganguly. In fact, just like Agassi's fans, not even the most ardent of Ganguly's supporters had expected a fairytale farewell, more because he did not have the opportunity to prove himself for the Rest of India side in the Irani trophy.

First, the obvious parallels between the two icons: both played their sport with real intensity, their supporters looked forward to gulping everything published about them in the media, both are/were huge crowd pullers, and both have had checkered and also controversial careers. These are real, tangible and palpable parallels, for sure.

But are their any real differences? In other words, barring the difference in context and that one played an individual while the other a team sport, are there other perceptible differences? The simple answer is "Yes".

The most perceptible difference is in the way we treat our icons. While Agassi will continue to be hailed as a legend and people will keep talking about the way he retired, Ganguly, it seemed at one point, will not have the opportunity to finish off with a flourish. In fact, while Agassi was the local favorite and the Americans took pride in designating the USTA tennis center his home, anyone who tried to speak up for Ganguly was at one point labeled a regional bigot.

One simple google search and the politicization of the Ganguly dropping became apparent. Rather than commenting on the composition of the Rest of India side, more than 2/3 of the news reports started with headlines that emphasized Ganguly failing to make it to the team, some of them even going on to suggest that it was the end for him.

However, despite these obvious and rather unpleasant differences, the uniquely fascinating thing about sport is that it does give the icon a chance to redeem himself against all odds. Agassi grabbed his chance against Baghdatis and scripted himself into history. Ganguly did the same against Australia, with a century at Mohali and that fantastic 85 at Nagpur. Now we can justly say that with Ganguly, no less a miracle man than Agassi, to guarantee that he will have failed was a risk that the selectors thought best to avoid. It is a tale of sport at its very best.