--Easwar
Prem Panicker responds: As far as more accountability in administration goes, I certainly won't argue with you, given that I've been arguing that case for what feels like a lifetime and a half. Having said which, I don't think "the involved people" are going to stand up and say, hey, we messed up, we don't think this kind of amateurishness will do any longer, so we are going to resign our posts and let professionals take over -- it is their jobs in cricket administration that give them visibility (would a JY Lele, or a Niranjan Shah, or most others, be anything other than names in the phone book if it weren't for their administrative roles?) and that being the case, it is highly unlikely they will relinquish their hold in the interests of the game.
The other question, of who signed what and when, is becoming increasingly intriguing, though -- the BCCI has been suggesting that some clauses were added subsequent to obtaining its signature, the ICC says the Indian board knew what it was signing, and the ball keeps getting tossed back and forth. Maybe, while asking for accountability, it is also time to ask for some transparency -- in the workings of both the BCCI, and the ICC. How difficult is it to put the contract, in its entirety, before the public?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of comments regarding ongoing ICC Contracts saga:
1. Did Dalmiya & co. sign the ICC contract way back in 2001 or not ? If they did, what business they have in disputing the contract ?
Whether the contract is fair or not is a separate issue - but once you sign the contract, what's the point in crying about it ? Didn't ICC have common sense to consult lawyers / players before committing to contract ? I think this joker called Dalmiya should resign because it is he who committed the blunder.
2. As for ICC's threat of taking legal action etc. - I think they are forgeting few realities. First, it is India which sponsors the Cricket. Take away India and ICC will find to realize even one fifth of US$ 500 M. Second, even if BCCI signed the contract, BCCI can always name a 'B' team and say according to them they are best to reprsent India. And if they do so, can you imagine the effect it would have on the sponsor / advertisers to have a WC without Tendulkar/Ganguly/Sehwag/Dravid/Bajji
BCCI can effectively kill 2 (or more) birds at one stone by naming a 'B' team to represent India. Actually that would be in interest of Indian Cricket also - the second team would get maximum experience and would help to discover new stars.
BTW, I don't understand how come in India we have non-Cricketing folks (e.g. Dalmiya, Dungarpur, Manohar Joshi) and second class Cricketers (Shivlala Yadav, Brijesh Patel, Ashok Melhotra & co.) as Cricket Administrators / selectors whereas Australia / NZ have some of their best ex-Cricketers as Administrators/Selectors ? Shouldn't Gavaskar/Bedi/Kapil/Vishwanath be running Cricket in India rather than the bunch of incompetent jokers ?
-- Nilesh
Prem Panicker responds: The BCCI signed a contract in 2001. This was when Dalmiya was chief of the ICC and A C Muthaiah was board president.
That contract did not have this clause in it. Subsequently, the BCCI signed another contract -- or rather, another version of the same contract -- in the middle of last year, when Dalmiya was board chief. And it is this contract that contains the provisions in dispute.
About the legal action part, while I agree that India contributes 80 per cent or more to the money in world cricket, I am not sure just how far we can take that fact. I am not saying that we tolerate injustice, mind -- but merely taking that thought to its logical conclusion here. For instance, assume the ICC decides to fine the BCCI for going back on a contract it had clearly signed. Assume the BCCI refuses to pay. Assume, further, that the ICC then bans the board -- and with it, the team. What then? Will the sponsors, whose money power we keep talking about, continue to ante up millions for the Indian team to play six a side cricket at home? Obviously not -- the money will stop flowing in, and that will ultimately end up hurting cricket in the country.
As to why we have non-professionals running the game, that is one of those perennial debates -- the BCCI has an autonomous structure, so any changes in its management style has to be made by the very people whose professionalism and ability is in question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to understand what exactly is happening with Srinath?
Whenther he wants to play in tests or he does not?
If he does then why he did not play against NZ and england and if he does not then why the hell did he play against WI?I personally feel his absence was the biggest reason for India not able to win in NZ and England and sadly nobody seems to be noticing this point.
--Jwalant Mehta
Prem Panicker responds: Things have been going from bad to worse ever since Srinath and his captain had a rather public showdown in course of the tour of the West Indies early last year. The real story of what is happening with him will only be known the day he quits the game -- and speaks his mind. Till then, anything we say would be, at best, speculative -- so hey, let it lie for now.
Actually, going off at a tangent, it is amazing how he is regularly trashed when he is in the side, and missed when he is out of it. Especially when we go abroad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does ICC Can force BCCI to select the # 1 Team I thought It's BCCI's internal matter to select the plyers. And if they wish they could send 15 players from under 19 team ? What if BCCI thinks ( of they ever start doing so ) that these guys are better
--Madhav Deshpande
Prem Panicker responds: Actually, that doesn't work -- most world tournaments, the organizers do specify that the countries send their best elevens; after all, the countries are getting compensated financially for sending their teams, this compensation comes from money the public and the sponsors pay -- and neither the public, nor the sponsors, put down millions just so you can send a club-level team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that struck me after the test matches was the pompousness of Fleming and company of how batsmen need to be able to play on all pitches etc. I just hope that for the return series next year we do provide them with pitches that break right away on day one and the ball turns square. Lets see their reaction then !!!
I am usually pretty critical of our batsmen's inability to play ( i dont think that they are the best in the world or anything) but what happened in NZ was not really their fault. They went from playing on wickets where the ball was begging to be hit to pitches which were two paced.
I was somewhat disappointed in Ganguli that he did not respond back to them with some of the similar comments. Talking about Ganguli, why is he in the test team? I think he batted ok in the flatter pitches of WI but I dont think he has the ability to play on any pitch where the ball is seaming and bouncing. I think he is a good odi player and a good captain but he is really just taking up a batting spot in the test team which could be occupied by a Kaif (Not sure if he would be any more successful but you gotta give the man a chance).
And finally can someone explain to me what Das was doing in the odi team? They should have used the opportunity of these odi's to try out the different combinations for the WC. Das has absolutely no chance of going to SA so why not use this time and try out a Dinesh Mongia for instance.
I wish the team management would do some explaining.
--Bobby
Prem Panicker responds: Frankly, I am one of those old-fashioned types who believe that cricketers should be seen -- in classy action -- and not heard, especially trashing their opponents. And that goes for all teams -- but apparently, 'gamesmanship', another word for rank bad manners, is supposedly how the game should be played these days, so hey...
To be fair to Fleming, he did mention, in that same media interaction, that he would expect to get square turners when he led his team to India next year, and that he would have no quarrel with that, it would be up to his team to adjust to those conditions just like it is up to the Indians to adjust to the conditions in Kiwi-land.
Ganguly's place in the team lineup has been debated endlessly, so I'll give it a break. What Das, who does not find a place in the 30 probables for the World Cup, is doing playing in a series that is supposedly meant to fine tune the side for the Cup, is one of those mysteries only the selectors have answers to. And they aren't talking -- they figured that trying to find "explanations" only underlines their mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While its perfectly all right to lambast the team for its pathetic performance in the test series,one fails to understand why Ganguly shoul should take all the blame for the debacle.Its true that he did not bat well,but neither did Laxman, Sehwag, Bangar or for that matter Sachin or Dravid. He has been quite consistent in 2002 except for the home series against Windies,where the exceptional generosity of Ashoka De silva ensured he had a nightmare.Talking of "leading by example in trying circumstances", I guess the pitch at Leeds where he scored 128 was a flat featherbed where anyone could have come and smashed it around..
Unfortunately public memory is hopelessly short and even the "true lovers of Test cricket" are ready to hang the captain when the team loses but not willing to give him any credit when the team wins.That's the captains job for you.
--Anindya Kar
Prem Panicker responds: You are right, actually, that is part of the captain's brief, to live and die by the results. Remember the fuss that was made over Nasser Hussain's 'generalship', when he packed leg cordons and had his bowlers bowl two feet outside leg stump to contain the Indian batsmen? He was supposed to be the best thing to have happened to captaincy. And now? Actually, in Hussain's case, he has been getting some runs -- but the team is getting trashed, and the call is for the captain's head.
Some captains, in fact, get dumped even when the team is winning -- ask Steve Waugh.
Ganguly got credit in plenty for a superb home win versus the Aussies, plus the fact that he has led the team to two wins away from home in the year just ending. Surely, the reverse will also apply? As to why the captains get it in the neck, it is probably because they are appointed to lead from the front -- and leading from the front does not mean only scoring one of three centuries in an innings. And again, this is true for all captains, everywhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------