|
January 4, 1998
NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
DEAR REDIFF
|
The Cricket Interview/Sunil Dev
'Bookies refused to take bets on the Dhaka tournament because they couldn't be sure which player would do what!'
You read the first segment of the Sunil Dev interview yesterday. In this, the concluding part of the conversation with Prem Panicker, the cricket official speaks of betting and bribery, of BCCI politics, and of his ongoing war with Jagmohan Dalmiya.
You say that lack of professionalism, within the Board of Control for Cricket in India, lies at the root of all evil. But just a couple of years ago, when Inderjit Singh Bindra was president and Jagmohan Dalmiya was secretary, the general belief was that the BCCI was very professional, very well managed. So why, how and when did it all go wrong?
See, in that partnership, Bindra was the brain, Dalmiya was the worker. It is that kind of combination that always produces results. Dalmiya was incredible, it would be one o'clock at night and he would call, asking about some detail or ensuring that something was properly organised, he had the ability to take infinite pains with the nitty-gritty of organisation, while Bindra was more the visionary.
As long as they worked in tandem, everything was perfect. Of course, even there there was the odd controversy -- but that is inevitable, in any organisation the size and scope of the Board, there will be disagreements. The point was that at that time, these things were soon over, discussed quickly and sorted out by the two of them.
And....?
The problem really began, I guess, in 1989. They played the Nehru Cup here in India (involving Australia, England, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies) and around that time, we hit upon the idea of sharing profits with the associate members, giving money to their boards for the betterment of cricket. True, the boards of the associate nations don't have much money, they could do with help, so it was a good thing.
But besides giving the game a boost, the plus as far as India was concerned was, the associate nations all realised that we were more likely to sympathise with their cause than the white nations, so they began supporting us in everything -- especially when it came to things like bidding for the World Cup. I mean, the 1996 World Cup, the discussions finally revolved around which of the bidders would give associate nations more money, that is how the India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka axis got it.
And that support in turn fuelled Dalmiya's ambitions, he realised that if he wanted to, he could become the ICC boss. So he made his bid for power, and in fact he would have won comfortably, but at the last minute the then president, Sir Clyde Walcott, unearthed this rule from somewhere, and blocked his bid. So Dalmiya failed, the first time...
At the time, wasn't there some talk of Dalmiya, with the backing of the BCCI, going to court?
Arre, that was just talk. Who is Sir Clyde Walcott? A cricket legend. And who is Dalmiya? A Calcutta businessman. A court case about cricket, between the two of them, I mean, who would have had more credibility? Of course there was no question of actually going to court, at that time.
So how did it all go smoothly the second time?
That is when David Richards entered the picture, he proved a mastermind. See, from the point of view of countries like England, Australia and such, they couldn't afford to have a vote, they knew the associate nations were solidly on our side, so it would have been a situation of this year, an Indian candidate, next year, a Pakistani, then Sri Lankan, then again India -- nations like Australia and England and South Africa and West Indies wouldn't have had a chance of getting a turn at the presidency, if the existing rules were allowed.
So David Richards effectively played on Dalmiya's ambitions, and sold him on the idea of the rota system, told him, okay, next year you become the president, we will frame new rules whereby each Test nation in turn will get a chance to be president. Since he was desperate to get the job, Dalmiya agreed.
But a rota system seems fair enough -- why not have each Test nation head the international body in turn, what's wrong with that?
Nothing. So tell me, then why was it not introduced before? Why did the idea strike people only when a situation arose where India became strong? Earlier, when the power was with nations like Australia and England, did anyone say, it is not fair, let all countries get a chance, and give it to India or Pakistan or whatever? No. This time, they knew they would lose, so suddenly, we think of the fairness of the rota system.
If there had been an election, Dalmiya would probably won anyway. But there was a risk, which he didn't want to take, so he agreed to this. And the result is, after his term ends, India will not get another turn for 24 years, each of the other eight nations will get their turn. If we had stuck with the old system, who knows, with India's strength, we could have won another term, or backed one of the two other sub-continent nations. The point is, we gave away our position of strength, just to satisfy one man's ambition.
Okay, granting all that, how did it affect the BCCI adversely?
Because Dalmiya wasn't content with being ICC president, he also wanted to have total control of Indian cricket affairs as well. I mean, officially it would be said that as ICC president he was neutral, but in effect, he wanted to be the top shot here as well. For instance, the first BCCI AGM after his becoming president, what was the first order of business? A resolution proposing that he be given a permanent seat in the BCCI!
When I heard about it, before the AGM, I began talking to people, asking them to protest the unfairness of it all, and that I guess was when I got into his bad books. In any event, I got the move blocked at that AGM.
However, Dalmiya ensured that people like Bindra were completely out of the BCCI, he filled it with people who would do what he said.
Raj Singh Dungarpur is rated as a very good administrator, a genuine lover of cricket... are you saying that he is not a fit successor to Bindra?
Look, Raj Singh is a wonderful person, he is a very genuine person. Unfortunately, at this point in time, he is struggling with too many personal problems of his own, and his mind and heart are not in the work of the BCCI. So who is left? The secretary, whose goal in life is one-day-before, one-day-after!
One-day-before, one-day-after? Huh? What's that?
See, the BCCI rule is, for all committee members and officials on duty, you get a stipend for the day you are working, plus also for the day before and the day after. That is, if you have a meeting of say the selection committee today, you get paid for yesterday, today and tomorrow. And recently, they upped the amount, first it used to be Rs 600, then they raised it to Rs 1,000, now it is Rs 3,000.
So by that rule, every time an official goes for a meeting, he makes Rs 9,000 -- plus, of course, air fare even if it is in the neighbouring city and you have taken a bus or train. And as long as he can continue that way, he is happy and will do what his master wants.
I mean, look how things are managed. Normally for a series, you pick a side, that's it. Then you either remove a player if he is injured or something, and replace him, if and when needed. The recent series against Sri Lanka, what happens? You meet in Bombay and pick a team for the first Test at Mohali. For that, you, and that includes the selectors, pocket your one day before one day after. Then you travel to Mohali and pick a team for the second Test, one day before one day after... and so on, all the time.
Look, what business does the Board secretary actually have at a selection committee meeting? He has no voice in selection, he is only there to record the minutes. In other words, it is just a clerical job, which anyone can do -- so isn't it sensible to ask the secretary of the local board to do the job? Like, if the selection committee is meeting in Bombay, fine, you ask the Bombay Cricket Association secretary to record the minutes. You save on air fares, five star hotels... even the selection committee, why pick teams for one Test at a time? Simple -- so that they too can get their one day before one day after....
That is the problem today -- the administrators are not really concerned about the game. They are not there for the love of the game. That is why I say, appoint professionals on contract. Give them a good salary, and hold them accountable for results.
Appoint a professional coach, a professional manager, a fitness trainer, for three, five years, whatever, pay them good salaries -- but at least, they will be answerable, since they are your employees. These one day before one day after types, how can you ever hold them accountable for anything?
It is to bring about these kind of reforms that some people, like Bindra and myself (Sunil Dev in fact contested for the post of secretary, against Lele) and some others decided to contest the BCCI election last year.
There was some talk that at the time of contesting the election for the ICC top post, the deal was that Bindra, once his tenure as BCCI president ended, would become head of the marketing committee. And further, that Dalmiya subsequently reneged, and that this was the beginning of the fallout between the two?
Possibly. I don't know for certain, I certainly was not privy to any such deal being made between the two. In any event, where is the marketing committee today? When Madhavrao Scindia was BCCI president, when N K P Salve was president, we had a marketing committee. Now, there is none. All deals are made behind the scenes, there is no transparency, no one knows what the terms are.
To come back to the board election late last year, it turned out to be the mother of all fiascos. The funny thing about it was that as late as the evening before, the prevailing impression in the media was that your faction had the winning edge. Next morning, the Dalmiya-Dungarpur group wins with ease. What actually happened?
P Chidambaram happened, the Dalmiya-Dungarpur group told me. At the last minute, he was roped in, and that changed the picture completely, zones that earlier were prepared to back us, suddenly did an about face.
Why? I mean, the BCCI is autonomous, why should Chidambaram or indeed any politician make a difference?
Arre yaar, don't be naive, the finance minister is the most powerful man in the country, and if he wants to he can make life difficult for any individual.
So Chidambaram involved himself in discussions with the various zones?
He didn't have to, just the fact that he was backing the Dungarpur faction was enough to intimidate everybody. I mean, his wife Nalini Chidambaram is brought in, for the election, as the Board's legal counsel, she is officially paid Rs 200,000, isn't that enough of a message to send to the various zones? So, of course, we lost. And of course, at the same time, Dalmiya and his crowd was promising all sorts of things to all sorts of people!
Like what?
Committee posts, chances to go serve as team manager, you name it. A C Muthiah believes that when Dungarpur's term ends, he will become the next president. And Venkat Rao also believes the same thing! You watch the fun later this year, when various people realise how they have been fooled! You remember that saying, you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time -- well, some people are still to learn that lesson!
Still on the subject of the BCCI election -- shortly before it happened, the word was that the selection committee would not be renominated. Even Dungarpur was supposed to have had enough, to have talked tough with them. But after the election, Desai and company are back, stronger than ever -- what caused that turnaround?
Politics, pure and simple. In the AGM, after the election, some of us raised the question of the selection committee, their omissions and commissions were discussed, a change was called for. Now from North Zone, the nominee was Kirti Azad. Suddenly, someone from the Dalmiya faction proposed, instead, that the NZ selector should be Vibhuti Das, from Bihar.
I mean, can you think of anything more ridiculous? The zone itself proposes Azad, but they try to rope in this guy from nowhere! What was even more interesting was, though I only learnt this later, they gave Azad the impression that I was the one who opposed him! Anyway, when Das's becoming a selector was opposed, they came up with the 'compromise' that the present selectors would get another term.
While on the question of selectors, are you of the opinion that only Test cricketers should be selectors?
No, I don't think so. I mean, many reporters who have never played a Test in their life analyse the game perfectly. Or just walk down the street and ask the nearest paanwallah, he will probably pick a team to play Australia as good as any that the best Test players in the country can pick. Look, it is not a question of whether you play Tests or not. Selecting a team is a matter of doing homework -- what team are you going to play against, what kind of players do you need to pick to counter them, like taking an off spinner to the West Indies for example; who are your best players, who are the ideal reserves.
These are the lines according to which you pick a team and for that you don't necessarily have to be a Test player. Anyway, who said Test players are perfect? They too have their biases, their agendas, they too play their own little games when it suits them.
I mean, isn't it curious, Sunil Gavaskar is the chairman of the BCCI's technical committee, last time it was he along with Kapil Dev who passed Rajesh Chauhan. When the ICC again suspected his action Kapil Dev, who is the kind who says what he thinks, reacted angrily, talked about the insult to him and to Gavaskar. But did you hear Gavaskar say one word in public against the episode? One word in support of the bowler he himself had passed? Sunny is a Test player, one of the best and most experienced that India has ever seen -- what difference did that make?
The point is not whether you have played Tests or not, even first class cricketers can be good selectors. Point is, they should be motivated by only one factor, and that is the question of what is good for the side. If you are honest, if you pick on form and based on the conditions, that is all that is needed.
Back to the question of politics in cricket -- Dalmiya and you recently provided a lot of comedy with your multi-million rupee libel suits against each other. What on earth was that all about?
You tell me! Actually, while we are on the subject, I now have one more in my name -- this time filed by Dalmiya's good friend Mark Mascarenhas.
Anyway, what happened was, I wrote a letter to the Board president, Mr Dungarpur, expressing my private concerns for the way the Board was functioning. In that letter, I had referred among other things to Dalmiya.
Next thing I know, the letter is in all the papers, and I find a libel suit filed against the DDCA and me. It says I have caused serious embarassment to Dalmiya and all sorts of things. Arre, as a private individual I write a private letter to the Board president, how can that embarrass anybody? How did that letter find its way into the media? You leak the letter yourself, then say you have been embarrassed, now what kind of game is that?
Is that what happened?
Like I said, my letter was to Dungarpur, I certainly did not give copies to the media, so you tell me how else it could have happened. Anyway, when I got that suit, I in turn filed my own suit -- I mean, even I have a reputation, if Dalmiya's is worth millions, then why not mine?
So what will happen now?
I should typically say the matter is pending in the courts and I can't comment. But yaar, actually, kya hoga? Nothing! Dalmiya doesn't have a case, he only filed that case to get cheap publicity. So, on the principle that you can only talk to people in the language that they understand, I too did the same. Arre, uski chamdi ki keemat karodon mein hain tho mera kya kum hai?
Let's revert for a moment to your report at the end of the South Africa tour. Rather noticeably, while you talk about everything else, you don't say a word about Ali Irani. Or rather, you said that you would discuss it with the Board, in person. What happened?
The Board never discussed any part of my report, so nothing happened, really!
But what was it about Irani you wanted to discuss?
His fitness to be the team physio. Arre, you need a person who is qualified, who can keep the players fit and in good health. Ali Irani gives everyone Revital! That is his idea of keeping players fit and strong!
I mean, in New Delhi when playing against South Africa, they present me with this bill for medicines purchased, Rs 36,000. I ask what medicines and they are all general pick-ups like Revital. I refused to pay the bill. We don't have to buy so much and take it home with us!
Don't get me wrong. Every team needs a person like Ali Irani, to make the players comfortable. He will do things for them, he pampers them. He is mother, sister, brother, father to the players -- everything, that is, except a physio!
Okay, now for the big one -- betting, bribery, match-fixing. Does it exist in the Indian team? Did you as manager spot anything suspicious?
As far as match fixing is concerned, I would say flat out, no! Not only have I never seen, or even heard of, anything to do with match-fixing, I don't believe it can be done. You can't get a whole team to play a certain way, you can't buy eleven individuals to procure a result.
Why not? Happens in football all the time....
True, but that is because football, it is mostly clubs, and a club is typically owned by a guy, you can fix things with him and he in turn tells the players, who are his employees, what to do. You don't hear of too many instances of match fixing involving national sides, unless on rare occasions they get together to keep some other side out of a final or something by drawing a game. But international cricket is not clubs, one man doesn't own all the players, and it is ridiculous to imagine a bookie or bookies negotiating with 11 separate individuals through the night.
But betting? Yes, I believe betting exists, that at least some Indian players indulge in it, that this is nothing new, nor is it confined to Indian players alone, you remember Lillee and Marsh betting against Australia once, when it looked like Australia were in the winning position?
And the point to remember is you can only bet to lose.
Meaning what, exactly? Could you explain how it works?
First thing to remember is, you would bet only when your team is playing a good side -- I mean, if India is playing Bangladesh, what is the point of betting on India, you wouldn't get good odds from the bookies anyway. So you would bet say when you are playing a strong side, Pakistan, South Africa, whatever -- because the odds will then be favourable.
So say you and maybe one, two others want to bet -- what will you bet on? Winning? How can you be sure you will play that much better than the other side? You might think so, but can you guarantee you will score more runs or take more wickets or whatever? No. So you can't bet on winning.
But you can bet on losing. See, suppose I am a key player, I decide, in this game, to place a bet, maybe a couple of others are doing it too. So what do you bet on? You can't bet that your team will win -- how can you be sure that you will perform better than the other side? But you can reasonably bet to lose -- because you can, when playing, make sure that happens.
It's easy, a missed catch at a crucial moment, you misfield or maybe throw wide on a run out chance, when you are batting you play a lot straight to the fielders, take up some time, don't score too many runs, or play a silly stroke and get out, all these things can help you bring about the result you want. And they are easy to explain -- I didn't see the ball against the lights, I threw and missed, what to do, the bowling was tight, the fielding was good, I tried to make room and hit across but I missed....
Yes, I believe this kind of thing does happen. And bookies are shrewd. When a player bets against his own team, they realise what is likely to happen, so that helps them in fixing their odds. So while there may not be a direct case of match-fixing, this sort of thing I would say does occur.
Which player or players do you think is involved?
There is no point naming names when nothing can be proved either way. But if the Board is really interested in clearing up the game, then it is easy -- an income tax assessment, an examination of the assets of individual players, all these things will tell their own tale.
But all this talk of bribery or betting or whatever, it surfaces only when India loses, especially close games. How about when it wins close games? Like for instance at Dhaka, when India successfully chased 314 to post a world record win?
You know the funny thing about the Dhaka tournament, don't you? Bombay bookies refused to take bets because they said they couldn't be sure which player would do what! That should tell you a tale in itself. Like I said, there is no point in going into personalities when you don't have any proof -- but it should be remembered, first, that even if some players are involved in betting, that is not true of all of them. And then, also, even the players involved don't bet on every single game, that would be stupid.
Your overview of Indian cricket appears to be overwhelmingly cynical -- incompetent and unprofessional administration, players whose integrity is not all it should be, and so on. So to what cause or causes would you trace the malaise?
A lack of love and affection for the game, from top to bottom. A lack of commitment to the game. Today, it is all a business -- for the players, for the officials, for everyone, it is a matter of making money. Things were not like this earlier.
I remember when I was young, just beginning to learn to play. Our coach was an Englishman called K Stevenson. Early every morning, he would rouse us out of bed, take us to the ground, we had to clean the pitch, put up the mat ourselves, practise hard, with him keeping a keen eye on us. He would pitch in with his own money to help us buy pads, gloves, things like that. Then there was a gentleman called Pearson, he was police chief here in Delhi during the last days of the Raj, after the British left, he stayed on, was an English tutor at St Stephens, and also our cricket coach.
Both of them, Stevenson and Pearson, when you look back, what you remember is they loved us like their own boys -- and because of that, they felt free to slap us if we did wrong, to chastise us. And we took it, because we felt their love and in turn we loved them. And they taught us to love the game for its own sake, to play for the joy of playing.
And today? Parents encourage children to play cricket because they know if their child makes it, he will make good money. Past players are falling all over one another to start coaching academies -- there are dozens like that, today. But not out of love for the game, out of a desire to teach young kids the skills they themselves learnt -- but because today, a cricket coaching camp is good money-making business. And officials? Like I told you -- one day before one day after, all of them...
Arre, those days, we used to get so pumped up, get gooseflesh when we were playing for our school against rival schools. Today, does the cricketer playing for his country feel half that sense of thrill?
So what else can you expect from cricket but declining standards?
When Australia was here last, for the one-off Test against India at the Firozeshah Kotla in 1996, they left vowing they wouldn't play in Delhi again because of extreme pollution. As a DDCA official, would you care to comment?
Arre yaar, to be fair, there is severe pollution here, I am a Delhi-ite and yet I can feel it, imagine the plight of visitors. It hits you badly, if you go out your eyes sting, so I don't blame the Aussies. Anyway, they only said they didn't want to play Tests, which extends over five days, they don't have a problem playing a one-dayer, they are actually scheduled to play one here, so no problem.
Which reminds me, what is this thing about constant changes in the schedule? First, Bangalore was not supposed to have a Test, then it gets one, venues are changed... earlier, the Board would release one itinerary and that was it, what's with all this chopping and changing these days?
Politics, what else? Do you know, I am the one who normally represents DDCA in the BCCI working committee meetings, but this time we were informed -- in a devious, roundabout fashion -- that if I represent the Delhi association, then Delhi won't be given a game.
They don't want Sunil Dev there in their meetings, because Sunil Dev talks too much, asks inconvenient questions. So this time, someone else represented Delhi -- why should the association lose, why should Delhi lose because Dalmiya doesn't like me? So I agreed to the substitution.
The same is the case with Bangalore. KSCA secretary C Nagaraj supported us in the BCCI election, so they said Bangalore won't be given a game. The KSCA finally threatened to go to court, that is why the Board finally panicked and scheduled a Test there. Arre, yeh BCCI kissi ka baap ka maal hai kya, for them to give or withhold based on their own whims and prejudices?
|