BCCI has lots of questions to answer

MAKARAND WAINGANKAR

Cricket in India has always been more about emotion and less about performance. A cricketer is not a mere player here but a star. In such a situation, ego issues are bound to crop up. Agreed that in most of the cases, it’s a hollow clash of snobs but the case of V.V.S. Laxman needs special attention.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION

One gets the impression that it is a lack of proper communication that has hurt his ego. Apart from his wristy batting, his percentage of winning matches for India is high. He certainly deserved better handling.

The fact that he played for 16 seasons shows his ability to perform consistently when things looked lost. Always maintaining a low key, he is a cultured person who made his bat speak for him. Unlike many others, he never used the media to project himself. To him, contributing to the success of his team was most important. He didn’t seek attention and yet made his presence felt.

 In 1899, after watching the scintillating strokeplay of Middlesex’s R.H. Spooner at Lord’s, Sir Neville Cardus wrote, “He charmed and won our heart and hearts of all his opponents. Yes, it was nice. It was the batsmanship of manners”. The description fits perfectly to Laxman.

When on song, he batted as if with a violin bow, caressing the ball by bisecting fielding positions at ease. He didn’t have to manufacture a stroke; it came naturally to him.

However, of late, things haven’t looked as sophisticated in his life off-field. There have been a series of ugly remarks and retorts. At the press conference, Laxman said, “You all know how difficult it is to get Dhoni on phone”.  Dhoni, meanwhile, stated in the pre-match press conference that he wasn’t invited for dinner at Laxman’s residence. Does it suit the international players of India to be involved in such ugly spats at the beginning of the season?

AMICABLE SOLUTION

In 1984 when there was a misunderstanding between Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev, the then President of the BCCI, N.K.P. Salve invited both for tea at his residence and in no time the problem was sorted out. Surely one expects the BCCI President to have a chat with players. We don’t want a Andrew Strauss-Kevin Pietersen situation in the Indian dressing room.

The Laxman episode could even have had a silver lining if young performers were given the opportunity against New Zealand but the selectors certainly lacked vision.

 The approach of the selection committee is so casual that in a matter of three hours, three teams — India, India T20 and India A — were chosen. Are we to believe that the potential of 75 players was discussed in three hours? Aren’t the selectors playing with young players’ careers?

The preferential treatment being extended to a select few is obvious and if the BCCI cannot notice this, it will have a detrimental effect on Indian cricket.

LIVE TELECAST

This attitude strengthens the argument of telecasting selection committee meetings live. In the country we live in, even Parliament sessions are telecast live. If the debates and decisions of the biggest democracy in the world are shown live, what is so special about the BCCI’s selection meetings? The BCCI has lots of questions to answer. 

Keywords: Laxman retirement, Waingankar column