New Delhi: In an exclusive interview with CNN-IBN Sports Editor, Gaurav Kalra, legends of the game - Imran Khan, Sir Vivian Richards and Arjuna Ranatunga - talk about what changes the game has gone through over the years, what is needed to help cricket get rid of corruption and much more.
Q: We have got a World Cup coming up. Just looking at the overall state of the game of cricket at the moment, do you think it's healthy? Continue reading below
Imran: That's a loaded question now. It is healthy in terms of commerce; finance probably the healthiest it's ever been. There is more money in cricket now than ever before. But is it healthy in terms of standard, quality, class? There are some batsmen who are doing very well but in terms of fast bowling, never I've seen so few quality fast bowlers as they are right now in world cricket. And you know when I was growing up, my great inspiration was Dennis Lillee; so quality fast bowlers attracted people to the ground. There was an era of Wesley Hall and Griffith, Thomson and Lillee and then the West Indies fast bowlers, Wasim and Waqar later on and even McGrath. You don't see quality fast bowlers any more. So in that sense, it's unhealthy. But in terms of interest in the game, players being paid more than ever in cricket history before and Vivian and I were thinking that we played for almost two decades; we never made that much money that they make in one month of IPL.
Q: I want to ask Sir Viv. Is that something that may be undervalues, as Imran says, as some of the batting efforts these days in comparison to what you achieved at your peak. Do you believe that is something that the world game needs to look at, quality of competition between bat and ball?
Richards: To be honest, what took place then was the best you have got in that particular time. But one cannot fault the individuals for being around at this particular stage when a lot of money which has come into it. I certainly believe that there are a lot many quality batsmen. Why? Because, as Imran just said, there isn't quality pace on a regular basis. There are not too many guys getting in above your head on a regular basis.
Q: And no one is batting without a helmet like Sir Viv used to?
Richards: Well, certainly I think times have changed. And I am one of those individual who does not have problems with the time change. I am very grateful to be involved or to have been involved in the sport that today is paying as much as it did. What I can hope in future is that the individuals pay some respect for that and stop thinking about may be the short-term side of the sport itself and just appreciate where they would have come from and where they are at present. So they should feel rather privileged in that sense.
Q: Just hearing Imran and Sir Viv talking, they started playing in an era just before yours. But one of the talking points nowadays is the impact of Twenty20 cricket and what impact it's having on the traditional formats? Do you have very strong views on that? Do you believe that some of these things that, as Sir Vivian has pointed out, have got to do with the virus of Twenty20?
Ranatunga: I personally feel when it comes to cricket, Test cricket is ultimate; no doubt about it. You can't argue with that. Then it's a fifty-over game because you need time to adjust. If you analyse from 75, I was a kid. When Viv and Imran were playing in the 70s, I was captaining the under-12 side and there was balance between bat and bowl. And there were top bowlers, top quality batsmen. But later part, it's probably close to 2000; the balance has gone away from the bowlers. It's more like 75 per cent batsmen.
Q: Is that the fault of Twenty20 cricket?
Ranatunga: I don't know. I believe it is one of the reasons but generally even the fifty-over games, it is more suited for the batsmen. The wickets are placid now, especially when you play in Australia. You could see when they play one-day cricket, they come out with very good tracks. But when we were playing, it was grassy; the fast bowlers were performing. But generally I think the balance has gone away from the fifty-over cricket. I think that's the concern I have presently. That must be the only reason that the younger lot prefers to be batsman rather than bowlers. And even in shorter versions, when it comes to Twenty20, it's 24 balls and what you can do in 24 balls!
Q: What do you make of the impact of Twenty20 cricket. Is it a good thing for cricket, as many of the marketing campaigns say it has given energy and new sort of audience? But do you believe it's destroying some of the skills the game should encourage among the younger players?
Imran: You know 20 years ago, I played an exhibition match in the United States and the game was reduced to 20 overs because of rain or something. And I noticed that the children, the expatriate Pakistanis and Indians, just loved it. It was action-packed. And I wrote to Kerry Packer and I said look, why don't you introduce in the United States because it's the best way to introduce a game to the American public. Little did I realise twenty years later, it would be introduced to cricket-playing countries.
Q: You missed out on a great idea; you would have made a lot of money.
Imran: No, it's not a question of money, it is about introducing. The more novice you are the more you enjoy Twenty20. But the ultimate test of a cricketer is Test cricket. Cricketers only rate Test cricketers. They would only rate cricketers who do well in Test cricket. Now the danger is in Twenty20, the amount of money you have, the players say make a name in one or two Test matches and then think this is too much of a hard work, go and play one-and-a-half-months and make all the money. It's a danger that you will devalue Test cricket and if Test cricket goes down, cricket will go down.
Richards: I would really like to add to that. What I think Imran just said, if you are going to have individuals to be part of the IPL, which is the more lucrative side of things, most certainly we can, may be, take from the American side the draft system when it comes to college football or basketball. We say you must be able to do your chores here, representing your country at a particular level of a particular length of time before you are worthy of getting into the IPL. And I hope that the individuals who are responsible for the game itself may find that particular balance, what Imran and Ranatunga were just discussing, that balance what we have felt over the years because most of us played our cricket at the highest level, Test match cricket is considered the 'ultimate Test' for any cricketer, whether you are a batsman or a particular bowler. Until you can make your choice from the beginning, you are eligible to get into the IPL and make all the money that you can, rightly.
Ranatunga: You can analyse in three lines. More like a fast food, easier to eat, good looking but not healthy.
Q: I want to mention the IPL, as talked both by Imran and Sir Viv. You have more administrative experience than these guys. The role of the BCCI. Do you think it is playing a damaging role in world cricket or because of the power of Indian money, playing a leadership role?
Ranatunga: I think both. Sometimes they are trying to dominate cricket. What we need from someone like India, BCCI is to protect other countries rather than dominate.
Q: Are they dominating?
Ranatunga: I think so yes. I won't say every time but some of the times. I have seen them dominating. They are trying to control but the important factor is for the BCCI to help some of the 'so called' minnows, may be some of the countries like Bangladesh who is struggling to come up. Even someone like Pakistan who is having a lot of issues now, to get them out of the shell and even West Indies. Those are the areas they need to look into rather than short version, trying to earn more money. Because you just need to keep this game going; you need to survive. otherwise may be you will get rid of West Indies or may be some other top country. I think cricket will not survive.
Q: Arjuna brought the role of the administrators. How important it is? When you look at it, Imran and sir Viv could reflect on this as well. Is the ICC a toothless body you believe or does it require some sort of injection of leadership?
Imran: The ICC can never be too powerful. It's a very much decentralised system. ICC can not micro-manage cricket in other countries.
Q: Would it help if, for instance, Imran Khan be the president of the ICC?
Imran: No, Imran Khan is not the right person to be the president but what I'm saying is you need to institutionalise cricket a bit more now. The itineraries are so heavy and by the way, one of the reason you don't have fast bowlers is simply too much cricket and too much one-day cricket. The more one-day cricket and more amount of travelling you have, the main individual in a team to suffer is the fast bowler, because they carry injuries some time. They need time to recover. You are playing one-day cricket, you are diving around and now the Twenty20 adds to the stress. Little injuries get exacerbated and that's what eventually ruins the fast bowlers' career. So in my opinion, the world cricket body should sit together with the cricketing ones and make a balance. The balance between making money and protecting cricket.
Richards: One got to remember India wasn't all that strong before. It's now that they are reasonably strong, finance-wise. India is sitting in a position now, where you can strike a particular balance with the governing body (ICC) to make sure that all your members are satisfied with the progress that's being made.
Q: I want to start by talking about really troubling issues this year, which emerged out of England. And it's just not the Pakistan problem, although it seems to be manifesting itself on Pakistani players. How worrying is the image that you saw emerging out of England and the exposes that happened subsequently where we got the impression that there is a scourge, a sort of spot-fixing and match-fixing is still around in world cricket?
Imran: I think it's a huge problem. I think in particular it's devastating for Pakistan. But you know something, looking at those images, any team could be doing it. It's almost impossible to detect. How can you tell whether someone bowled a no-ball by taking money or it's an accident? No-balls are bowled in cricket. My worry is that this could be far more widespread than we think, spot-fixing I'm talking about. Match-fixing is a much bigger deal and perhaps can be detected. Who's going to detect that? If a batsman plays a maiden over, how do you know he is taking money or not? That's my worry, that this could be quite widespread. It was the 'News of the World' sting operation, not some ICC investigation that caught them. So bear in mind that it was just by chance that it came out. Even Hansie Cronje's case was completely by fluke. It just happened that the phone got tapped and by chance he got caught. So therefore, I think measure need to be taken and they need to be drastic like bank accounts. All the players should submit their bank accounts. They should make it so transparent that how much money they have, how much tax they pay, assets declaration. It's got to be much more extensive, so that the deterrent factor is there, so that the people are scared that they can be caught. Otherwise, I don't know how you are going to catch spot-fixing.
Q: Arjuna, you had a spell as an administrator and a strong captain of your team. There will be a hearing in January against these three Pakistani players. It's upon the ICC to prove their guilt since they have suspended them. What in your mind is the way forward to get rid of the menace?
Ranatunga: I think it will be very difficult to do that. The important factor is like what Imran said. I add to that you need cricket expertise to watch cricket because you can have the best cop in the world but I am sure that he won't be able to identify something happening in cricket. But may be if you can get hold of five-six very honest past cricketers to sit with them, may be they might identify some funny things happening. Actually I mentioned this to the ICC a couple of years back but it's very, very important that the past cricketers, honest cricketers, are part of this anti-corruption unit because it's easier to monitor.
Imran: You need Scotland Yard or whatever, their expertise, to monitor the other things like bank balances, money transactions, tapping phone calls. It can destroy cricket. Because I know in Pakistan today people are totally demoralised. They don't want to watch cricket because of these allegations that have come out. It has just devastated the cricketing public. If I can have doubts, what about a common guy who doesn't understand cricket. He will think each time the team loses, it's fixed.
Q: Do players care lesser, you believe, now about playing for their country?
Richards: Well I think that's the case that we are getting at this stage. I can deal with some of the individuals who play for the West Indies at present. They don't take central contracts and things like that. Here I think they are really ungrateful in my opinion. They have been given a chance through the best form of the game, which is Test match cricket. And then all of a sudden because of lucrative side of the things in the IPL and all the financial sides to that, they are ignoring playing for their countries. There is no honour.
Ranatunga: It happens all over the world, even in Sri Lanka. We had to cancel a tour to England to accommodate players to go to IPL. In our time, it had never happened or never discussed but the issue is ultimately that this sport has become a business.
Q: One or two final issues. I start with sir Viv on this one: the role of technology that is something hugely discussed. What do you make of all of these conversations on at the moment about the increased role of the referral system for instance and things like that. Where do you see that going?
Richards: I am hearing that they also want to introduce that in the World Cup coming in February, that they are going to use it for some of the matches and I think that is totally unfair because they may affect some team who could go to the finals.
Q: Are you a fan of the referral system?
Imran: I am a complete fan of the referral system. I wish it existed in my days, as an in-swing bowler. And remember there weren't even neutral umpires in my time. The fairer the game, the results are fairer. I was in 1987 World Cup. We were in the semifinals and were getting close to winning the match and I was given out. Clearly I missed the ball by six inches and it was on television. But it just distorts results. So in my opinion it should be all the way through. Right to the final, you should have a referral system and it's a golden opportunity. Umpires are human and they make mistakes but a mistake should not cost a team a World Cup.
Richards: You look at the Australians. I was in Australia recently and Mike Hussey, he referred upstairs at a time when he was given out and he was called back. So the guy who was not in the best of nick got back into form.
Imran: Forget about Hussey and imagine Viv Richards. Now a team is playing against him. He is given out when he is not out. How much his team suffers? If he is given not out when he is out, the other team suffers. This man could make the difference to winning and losing. So it has to be a fairer system. Technology has completely eliminated the problem of run-outs and stumpings. I mean no one complains. In our time, there were fights on the field. There was bad blood because of bad decisions. I remember the famous Michael Holding kicking out the stump against New Zealand. The bad blood in our day was because of bad umpiring. I think the better the umpiring better the atmosphere in the game and fairer the result.
Ranatunga: I think the three of us will agree on the same thing not because of anything we really suffered when we were playing. No neutral umpire, no system, no referral system, no TV umpires. So I think we are the ones who suffered but if we had those facilities when we were playing, I'm sure the averages and careers would have been different. I think that's the one thing I really supported.
Imran: Not so much the averages, the results would have been fairer, the overall impact. We would have still got runs but the overall result, the game could have changed. One decision, as I said in the semifinal, we were in a winning position; a bad decision and we lost the semifinal. How many World Cups does a player get a chance to play in?
Richards: I remember when we went to Pakistan and Imran was the first guy, I think, mentioning that there should be neutral umpires and in that series, we beat Pakistan in
Pakistan. We had two neutral umpires from India.
Imran: That was the first time there were neutral umpires in cricketing history against the greatest team in the Test history and the reason was because bad umpiring destroyed cricket series. A number of times we had problems in England. In Australia, you had problems. One critical decision could change the course of the match. So I am all for technology.
Q: If each one of you were to pick your World Cup favourite, who that will be and why?
Ranatunga: I might have to say India and Sri Lanka. Both favourite but my underdog will be Pakistan.
Imran: My favourite is India because of home conditions. India number one, Sri Lanka after that. Both teams are in good form, good balance. And underdog, I would love it to be Pakistan.
Richards: The way India has been playing, and certainly they are at the top of their game at present, I would give them that opportunity to be the team to get into the final but my team at home, the West Indies, we are only praying. We've got some talented individuals but don't ever count them out. They do stand an outside chance.
(Watch CNN-IBN live on your iPad. IBN7 and IBN Lokmat too. Download the IBNLive for iPad app. It's free. Click here to download now)
