Hardly breaking news - Sunil Gavaskar faces conflict of interest situation yet again

An English newspaper editor once wrote about Sunil Gavaskar - "He has an inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". He keeps proving it right every now and then.

In early 2007, he and Ricky Ponting had a slanging match when Gavaskar commented on Australia's behaviour and in response Ponting pointed out that Gavaskar had no business talking of behaviour when he had famously dragged along Chetan Chauhan after being given out lbw off Lillee at the MCG in 1980.

Then last year he alleged at race being involved in Mike Procter's decision to ban Harbhajan for 3 tests after the events at Sydney. David Morgan, the then President-elect of the ICC, expressed concern over the conflict of interest (Gavaskar was ICC Cricket Committee chairman & cricket columnist/commentator). A couple of months later, there were rumours that Gavaskar would be asked to choose from one of his roles and in April of 2008, he resigned from his role as chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee.

In a column published last weekend, he rubbished John Buchanan's idea of having multiple captains by wondering aloud why people even bothered listening to him. He pointed out that Buchanan had successfully got roles within the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) support staff for a lot of Queensland friends. He also generally rubbished Buchanan's coaching skills, qualifications & achievements.

Sunil Gavaskar is a member of the IPL's Governing Council. Thus, he really has no business passing judgement on the strategies and plans proposed or adopted by any of the teams that are playing in the tournament. If he isn't on the governing council, he is well justified in criticizing (or applauding) what the various teams do (or don't do). But since he is, surely it is a huge conflict of interest. If there was some decision that the IPL Governing Council needed to make regarding something related to KKR, that team would be be perfectly justified in demanding that Sunny recused himself from the proceedings.

Labels: conflict of interest, gavaskar, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:46 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Weekend news: Trescothick retires, Gavaskar to be retired?

Two significant events happened over the weekend.

Marcus Trescothick announced his retirement from international cricket a week after he withdrew from Somerset's pre-season tour of the UAE due to a recurrence of the stress-related illness that caused him to pull out of the 2006 Ashes tour and the tour of India earlier that year. Given his discomfort at touring, it may be assumed that he won't sign up for the IPL.

Sunil Gavaskar is in a soup this time for sure with the ICC bosses. He had written a scathing column last week in which he referred to England and Australia as dinosaurs and defended the BCCI's stand in Australia vis-a-vis the racial remark allegations against Harbhajan.

Gavaskar keeps getting into trouble. In January, after Mike Procter pronounced a 3-test ban on Harbhajan, he was accused of (and rightly so) alleging that Procter's decision was racially biased.

Last year, Gavaskar angered Ponting following his comments on the Australian team's behaviour. In that post, I wrote:

It may not be a bad idea for Gavaskar to realize that there're genuine conflicts of interest between his duties as the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee and his rights as a columnist. I don't remember who, but I'm sure I've read a comment piece some time ago by a columnist/editor in (possibly) 'The Times' which talked about Gavaskar's "inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". If Gavaskar had concerns about Australia's behaviour, I'm sure there are right 'channels' to get his concerns addressed, especially since his committee 'deals with any matters or issues relating to the game or the playing of the game.' (sic)

One year later, we run into the same problem. While I'm of the opinion that the committee that he heads hasn't really achieved anything of note (umpiring standards are pathetic, player behaviour is pathetic, over rates are pathetic, usage of technology is ambiguous, cricket schedules are pathetic & crazy), I really hope he opts to stay on the committee.

He used to be a very good commentator but in the last half-decade or so, his commentary skills have dipped alarmingly. I'm fairly sure cricket production houses will also favour him remaining on the committee rather than stay on in the commentary box for the simple reason that they won't have to keep erecting a fence every time he goes on air, for that's where he is sitting all the time!

Sample this: At Perth, when Kumble announced that India would bat first, my first reaction was "Go for it, Jumbo! Great, bold decision in the context of the series!". Harsha Bhogle asked Gavaskar what he felt. Gavaskar said he'd have opted to bowl first factoring in the weather, India having 3 seamers and Australia having 2 inexperienced openers. He'd barely finished the sentence when he said that on the other hand, India had batted first and got over 600 at Leeds in 2002 on a green wicket that aided swing bowling, so batting first was a good idea too. This piece of expert commentary really sealed it for me and I've now lost respect in his abilities as a commentator.

So, for the sake of us cricket fans, Mr. Gavaskar, please stay on the committee and off the tube!

Labels: comments, conflict of interest, england, gavaskar, india, perth 2008, sydney 2008, television, trescothick

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Good timing Mark, as usual. Pity about the content though

A couple of days after the Indian team exited the World Cup, Mark Waugh referred to Sunil Gavaskar's remarks on Aussie behaviour and David Hookes in his weekly column for the Sun-Herald.

Most of what he said was pretty identical to Ricky Ponting's outburst against Gavaskar. The problem was that while dismissing the tendency to keep referring to Australian cricketers' behaviour as stereotyping, he went on to do the same for sub-continental cricketers. First he said

One of the hardest things in cricket is shedding a title. A batsman described as "gritty" finds it a hell of a task to be acknowledged for other traits. The Aussies face the same struggle because sledging is what the media and critics home in on.

Then he went on to over-generalize on sub-continental teams using runners, substitutes, tampering with balls, playing for individual records (shades of Matthew Hayden circa 2004 here), etc.

The Australian teams I played for, and those I've watched since retiring, play hard but fair. They play within the rules while other teams, especially those from the subcontinent, don't mind pushing the rules.

I cite such things as their preparedness to call for runners when maybe the batsman doesn't warrant one, or by fielding specialist fieldsmen as substitutes, as not being in the spirit of the game. And then there's examples of ball tampering.

The difference between many teams is that Australia, South Africa and the Kiwis want to win as a team, so they play hard, whereas players from the subcontinent appear happy to play for individual performances, though with Tom Moody as their coach the Sri Lankans are developing some Aussie-style confidence.

It's sad that Waugh failed to realize even after proof-reading (or maybe he just pockets the money without caring for what his ghost-writer spits out) that he was contradicting himself. Maybe he was extrapolating to show us what stereotyping actually meant.

So while he got his timing spot on, the content left a lot to be desired.

The larger issue though remains about what the BCCI and India's players need to do to make sure that they don't continue to be laughed at about their on-field performances.

Labels: australia, gavaskar, india, mark waugh, waugh

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gavaskar apologizes

Sunil Gavaskar, who displayed very little maturity when he referred to David Hookes' death, has finally apologized for his remark.

On live television and radio, sometimes you respond on the spur of the moment with a remark that can cause hurt and pain to others.

I realise and I accept that what I said was uncalled for and inappropriate. Having said that, I hope they have the bigness of heart to forgive me for what I said about David Hookes.

Fair enough, Sunny. At least you realized and owned up that you messed up. I don't disagree with your comments on the Australian team's behaviour, but if 'spur of the moment' is your excuse, the Aussies can also say that all their behavioural malfunctions are on the 'spur of the moment'.

Labels: australia, behaviour, gavaskar, hookes

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:11 pm | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Some angry cricketers

Ricky Ponting is seething over Sunil Gavaskar's remarks last week that Australia's behaviour made them a less liked bunch of winners compared to the West Indies sides of the 1970s and 1980s. So Ponting went ahead and made the obligatory reference to Gavaskar dragging Chetan Chauhan to the boundary after copping a bad decision at Melbourne in 1980/81. This wasn't the first time Gavaskar had pointed out Australia's bad behaviour. He did so in 2003, while delivering the Colin Cowdrey lecture at Lord's.

Aside from referring to Gavaskar's antics at Melbourne (curiously, he didn't refer to Sunny's 36 at Lord's in 1975), Ponting talked about India's hopeless record in tests and said that he knew who he'd rather watch. I hope his national cricket board was listening. They seem rather over keen to have India play Australia, at various venues - now Ireland after Malaysia last year. Ponting also said that his team was placing a lot of emphasis on behaviour, something which he talked about a in 2005 and John Buchanan talked about in 2006. Maybe they're not doing enough - Australian players made seven visits to the ICC Match Referee's room in 2007, Ponting doing so twice.

It may not be a bad idea for Gavaskar to realize that there're genuine conflicts of interest between his duties as the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee and his rights as a columnist. I don't remember who, but I'm sure I've read a comment piece some time ago by a columnist/editor in (possibly) 'The Times' which talked about Gavaskar's "inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". If Gavaskar had concerns about Australia's behaviour, I'm sure there are right 'channels' to get his concerns addressed, especially since his committee 'deals with any matters or issues relating to the game or the playing of the game.' (sic)

The other player who should actually be very angry, but probably isn't, is Denesh Ramdin. Rahul Dravid, while defending Sehwag's inclusion in the light of yet another low score, seemed to get a little angry.

I get asked this question why are you supporting Sehwag. Anyway my supporting Sehwag, it is not like I'm supporting Joe Bloggs, some Ramdin or Ramakdin or something.

Joe Bloggs, I can understand. Ramakdin, less so. But Ramdin? I mean, why pick on a 21-year old who's just about made it to the West Indies squad for the tournament?

Update: I wonder if Dravid or Gavaskar should point out that India beats Australia hollow when you compare recent one-day record against England because Ponting only referred to India's poor test record.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, behaviour, conflict of interest, dravid, gavaskar, india, ponting, ramdin, sehwag, sledging, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:52 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]