It's a no-win situation for Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly. When they score a century against minnows Bangladesh, the cynics have a field day. And you can bet that the same pundits who talk about the value of a century against Bangladesh would have been out with the knives if the batsmen had failed with scores under 40.

I fail to understand a simple thing. If Bangladesh are so poor, why were these players considered unworthy of playing against them in the ODI series that  preceded the tests? The board and the selectors clearly thought that they weren’t good enough to play the ODIs. They needed just one innings to assert themselves again.

Anyway, the Tests have shown us that Gautam Gambhir will cement his place  for the tour to England, so he is good enough to be assessed against Bangladesh. But when it comes to Sachin and Sourav, critics will say that they should still be kept out as they can only score against the minnows.

But let's examine their records more closely in ODIs. Sachin has scored 82 per cent and Sourav 75 per cent of their runs against the major nations - Australia, England, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies. How flawed and hollow all those 'minnow' statements look. And each and every great batsman in the world has a fantastic record against the minnows, be it Sanath Jayasuriya, Ricky Ponting or Inzamam-ul-Haq. The reason why they are great batsmen, is that they have scored heavily against the other major nations also. I simply fail to understand why critics in India look at the stats of Sourav and Sachin in such narrow  terms.

Despite being high-profile performers, Ganguly and Tendulkar are ridiculed. Man of the series awards against the Windies and Lankans count for nothing. A century against Bangladesh counts for nothing. But when Gambhir scores a century against the same team, he is hailed as the opener for the future.

Are Ganguly and Tendulkar judged too harshly? Post a comment below or submit an article to Sportingo.