|
|
Change Your Life! |
Indian Cricket- recent development |
|
News |
April 14, 2000 Indian cricket revels in controversies. Invariably major issues crop up on the eve of a tour, a home series or a tournament. True to tradition, the triangular in Bangladesh has been preceded by heated discussions over the appointment of a new captain and the swift, unceremonious banishment of Rajesh Chauhan following a directive from the International Cricket Council. Frankly, there has been talk of Azharuddin regaining the captaincy he had lost to Sachin Tendulkar for quite some time. After a while it simply became a question of when. It might have happened when the selectors met to finalise the skipper and the squad for the tournament in Sharjah because Tendulklar had been given the job only for the three-Test series against Sri Lanka. Tendulkar was then given a short extension till the end of the year. Reportedly, the voting was 3-2 in his favour. Which sufficed to show the sharp division in the selection committee. The directions given to Tendulkar, like who should open the innings and that he should come lower down, clearly indicated the selectors growing impatience with him. They wanted results. They wanted him out. Tendulkar carried on, putting on a brave face and acknowledging the selectors supremacy. And he might have remained the boss had India won the third and final one-dayer against Sri Lanka in Goa. India would have clinched the series then and the selectors would have been left with little choice but to endure him. There is a lot of talk of money changing hands. Big money. Fat contracts. Like betting and match-fixing this is a matter that cannot be established. However, the suspicion arises mainly because the reasons advanced for a change are far from convincing. ``There was nothing wrong with his captaincy as such," concedes chairman Ramakant Desai. ``However, the committee felt that the pressure was affecting Tendulkars batting." The plain truth is that pressure is part and parcel of life and there has not been much evidence to show that Tendulkar has failed as a batsman since he has scored 1,000 runs in a year in Tests and an equally impressive number in one-dayers. Tendulkar is playing it cool. In a way he must be grateful that he is now a free man. He can open the innings again in one-dayers, a job he enjoys. Perhaps he can also take comfort from the good possibility of being made the skipper again. He is just 25 and almost 10 years Azhars junior. Besides, selectors are elected annually and a new set may take a totally different view. Que sera sera. (Whatever will be will be). In the course of an interesting lecture the other day Mike Brearley, former England captain and considered the most cerebral of them all, noted that captaincy was an art. It called for deft use of psychology. And that it would not be easy for a comparatively young person to lead the side as he may find it hard to handle the seniors. True. It calls for a great deal of tact and understanding to get men of different moods, temperaments, outlook and skills to work together in the best interests of the team. Here is where psychology helps. Some egos have to be massaged. It may be necessary to use stern methods to bring some others to heel. At the same time quite a few young men have made a success of the job. The most striking example is that of Richie Benaud.. However, he owed a lot to the unstinted cooperation he received from his senior, Neil Harvey, who had been overlooked. Harveys reaction when Benaud called him up spoke for the man. ``Our job," he said, ``is to beat them." If all members of the Indian team displayed the same attitude and commitment to the cause it would perhaps make little difference who was at the helm. India would surely have won many of the matches they managed to lose despite reaching a commanding position. Hence it is that a captain is only as good as his team even though a captain can make or mar a team. Chauhans banishment comes like a bolt from the blue. Heres a player who had been left out in the cold because of doubts over his bowling action and then became not only a regular but also the Indian teams leading spinner after he was brought back during the tour of Sri Lanka in July-August. The righteous indignation over the latest International Cricket Councils directive that he should not be included till his action was corrected with the help of an ICC-appointed coach arises from the fact that at no stage of his career has Chauhan been called for throwing. The stark irony is that while Sri Lankas Muthiah Muralitharan who was called in Australia has since been rehabilitated largely on the strength of a medical certificate that he has a deformity in his bowling hand since birth. Chauhan, who has passed the scrutiny of every umpire who officiated when he was playing, stands condemned. The crucial question that arises is how a bowler who had not been called by umpires on the ICC panel like Steve Bucknor of the West Indies or Cyril Mitchley of South Africa could be indicted by an experts panel that watched videos of his action. Either the umpires did not know their job or preferred to turn a blind eye so that they will not be caught in the eye of a storm. Since it is hard to classify all umpires in either category one is made to wonder whether they were told to wait for the ICC experts to act. All would no doubt have been quiet but for the report by Bob Simpson who was the match referee for the recent India-Sri Lanka series. Possibly, the ICC wants to avoid embarrassment all round. Even then it is unfair that bowlers should be allowed to carry on till the ICC panel pronounces its verdict. Chuckers generally are clever men who throw only the odd ball when least expected and thus manage to get away. How could the umpires be mute witness to wickets claimed off unfair deliveries? No one will dispute that chuckers need to be thrown out. They bring discredit to the game. At the same time the way the ICC is going about it is hardly satisfactory because a bowler not found guilty on the field is being sentenced to a correction school by others who despite all their eminence are not qualified umpires. Kapil Dev has threatened to quit the ICC panel on the issue. On his part, Chauhan has vowed to stage a come-back but seems to have no intention of taking the help of the ICC-nominated coach. Neither course will have the desired effect. |