Facebook
Twitter
RSS
New Delhi: The former Indian captain, Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi has said, what Greg Chappell had in mind for Indian cricket was very good and important and that it was "a shame that he had to leave in 22 months."
Speaking in an interview to the CNN-IBN programme Devil’s Advocate, Tiger Pataudi was first asked about whether he thought that Greg Chappell had been shabbily treated.
In reply the former captain said: "I think it's a shame that he had to leave in 22 months, because I think what he was trying to begin for Indian Cricket was a kind of shift of emphasis from individual flair and brilliance to a kind of team work which Australia is so good at, and which is why he was actually invited to this country."
When asked further whether Chappell had become the fall guy, Pataudi agreed and said that his resignation took the spotlight away from the "abysmal performance" of the Indian Cricket Team in the World Cup.
Karan Thapar: To what extent has Chappell become - in the eyes of the Press and in the eyes of some players, both present and past - a fall guy because he is a foreigner and therefore an easy target?
M A K Pataudi: No, not necessarily because he is a foreigner, although there's a lot of objection to that, but because he managed to take the flak away from a very abysmal performance in the World Cup, by resigning.
And therefore the emphasis of criticism of the players was shifted to Chappell's resignation, or his no longer wishing to carry on.
However, Chappell had partly himself to blame, because he got involved in politics towards the end of his tenure. Towards the end, I think he started getting involved in a bit of politics also - from what I understand.
In the sense that you know these SMS-es to Press people, and therefore I think having got involved in politics, I think he suffered from the politics of Indian Cricket also"
Karan Thapar: Reagrding Greg Chappell’s stint as coach of the Indian cricket team?
M A K Pataudi: Chappell tried to do what he was called here for – to help build a team, rather than focus on individual brilliance. He failed in this attempt because of the methods he adopted.
What he tried to do is something that India needs, Indian cricket needs rather - which is again you know - play as a team, and it doesn't matter whether you are Sachin Tendulkar, or you want to open or you want to bat at number 4. You go where the team, or the coach thinks, or the captain thinks that you should go.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying, a bit like bitter medicine, we should have put up with Chappell, because we need him, he was good for us?
M A K Pataudi: I am saying what he tried to do was good for us, I am saying also that the methods that he used may not have been very good, because they were not successful.
But the supposed differences that cropped up between Chappell and
Sachin Tendulkar, could have been easily avoided with a simple phone call.
Karan Thapar: One of the players, many believe, that dealt the final blow that brought Chappell down is Sachin. Now in Sachin's case he wrote and I quote - "If the coach said this, then it's true." Which clearly suggests that Sachin didn't know and also that Sachin made no direct attempt to find out from Chappell. So should Sachin have spoken out?
M A K Pataudi: I think perhaps it's better, because their relationship wasn't at all bad - they had a very good relationship. Again (there was) that slight lack of communication, a little hurt, a little emotion, a little sentiment.
I think they could have got together very much more easily and discussed it on the phone even, that why have you said this, if you have said it. And if you haven't said it then please deny it.
Karan Thapar: So Sachin should have made that effort to ring up Chappell and discuss it rather than go public with it?
M A K Pataudi: I think Chappell could have also made an effort.
Karan Thapar: Both of them should have made a better effort?
M A K Pataudi: Yes, a better effort to talk to each other.
Karan Thapar: The strategy in a sense that Chappell had been identified with was one that was badly needed. Now, that strategy consisted in a sense of two important components.
The first was retiring old stars who he thought in a sense has seen their better days, and that takes a lot of courage and strength to do. And the second was not to play unfit and out of form players which takes lot of honesty. Given that you said that we need that strategy, do we have either the strength and courage, or the honesty to implement it?
M A K Pataudi: No, not yet because we make the better players into icons, into demi-Gods, and then we find it very difficult to give them the sack.
Who is going to sack Sachin Tendulkar - though I don't think he requires to be sacked, but if you think he does, who will sack him?
You have to be strong enough and not care so much about what the public thinks, or the public feels, if you want to get rid of some of the senior players."
Karan Thapar: The Board wants to limit the number of endorsements each player can take on and they also want to vet the contracts, to make sure their are no unwarranted terms. Do you think that's a wise course of action?
M A K Pataudi: I think it's unnecessary in the sense that you can't limit somebody to 5 or 3 or 6. I think you might find they'll come across some legal problems.
But that's not the point. The point is that if you feel that the player is losing his focus because of endorsements or because of too much advertising, and so on, then his performance is falling.
The minute his performance falls you get him out of the team, you don't stop him from advertising! You say - 'no thank you, you are no longer required in the team, till you start focusing again' So it's a soft option, the Board is taking.
Karan Thapar: In fact what you are also suggesting is that it’s not just a soft option, the Board may be operating at the wrong end of the equation. They should be tough on the players who do not perform rather than lay down limitations that may not be legally possible. So it’s the wrong end they are operating on.
M A K Pataudi: I think so, but it’s the easier end.
Karan Thapar: What about the public perception that commercial contracts has often distracted players and easy money has spoilt them?
M A K Pataudi: I think that’s unfair but it is a public perception which should be gotten rid off. The amount of time players spend on endorsements is actually not that much. Maybe they spend a week, ten days on them a year.
Karan Thapar: It’s said to be 70 days a year in some cases.
M A K Pataudi: But even if you are doing 10 advertisements, are you going to take 70 days to do that? I have done many ads and I take three hours to do one. So 70 days sounds too much. But let’s have a look at the contract.
Where I object to any contract is where the sponsor says that the longer you stay at the crease, the more we will pay you.
Karan Thapar: If there are clauses that stipulate that the longer you stay at the crease, the greater the payment you get - You would say that those are invidious and detrimental to the interest of the game?
M A K Pataudi: Absolutely and completely, and no player should sign them. I think the Board has said that they will study the contracts very carefully. If such a contract does exist, I think it's disturbing and I am very surprised that any player has signed it.
Karan Thapar: And if it emerges that a player or two have signed clauses such as this then you would be very upset as well as very disturbed?
M A K Pataudi: Absolutely, very upset, I think I would take some serious action against the player.
Karan Thapar: You would take serious action against that player?
M A K Pataudi: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Even if that's in retrospect?
M A K Pataudi: Yes, definitely. Doesn't really matter whether it's in retrospect or in the future. The fact that he is there to play for the team, and play for himself requires tough action.
Karan Thapar: And that in a sense is your advise to the board as well?
M A K Pataudi: It's my advice to anybody who is listening.
Karan Thapar: Now the players say that they have only a short shelf life and they have every right to make as much money as they can and if the Board spends its efforts maximising what it earns in revenues, why shouldn’t they? How would you respond to that?
M A K Pataudi: That’s a fair enough attitude. My objection is not to players making money. My objection is only that they should be able to focus on the game.
I don’t think that endorsements necessarily take the focus away because they certainly don’t take the focus away from other people.
Karan Thapar: So it seems to have become a controversy between the players on one hand and the Board on the other. So you think the Board should take a unilateral decision or should it do it in consultation with the players?
M A K Pataudi: I think the Board will have to negotiate and consult the players because a unilateral decision is not going to help at all.
Karan Thapar: Are you confident that the Board has the sensitivity to handle this tricky matter effectively?
M A K Pataudi: I think right now the Board is headed by one of the most successful and intelligent politicians who knows what he’s doing so he will consult the players.
Karan Thapar: So you have great confidence in Sharad Pawar in particular?
M A K Pataudi: As long as he does not interfere in the actual cricketing part of it, yes, I do.
Karan Thapar: A second issue that has become a controversy is the question of payment.
The Board it seems wants to move away from the graded system towards a flat equal fee for all the players with perhaps performance related bonuses. Do you think that’s a good idea?
M A K Pataudi: I think performance related bonuses is a good idea, if the contract is already there, which it is. I also think it’s not necessary to have graded contracts.
I think it’s necessary to have a limited contract but a larger bonus for doing well and certainly a lot of annoyance and disagreement with the Board if the performance is not there.
Karan Thapar: I should point out that some former captains are in favour of graded contracts and said that they had strived for them in their own time. You are taking a different view.
M A K Pataudi: I’m saying that if you have a contract, it doesn’t need to be graded. All I’m saying is that money should be performance related.
Karan Thapar: Many people believe that the idolisation and adulation that the Indian press and perhaps television in particular shows to Indian cricketers has in a sense been bad for them - would you accept that?
M A K Pataudi: I think you have to grow up. I think if you are playing a grown up game you should be grown-up enough to accept the kind of adulation that you will get in this country, and the way they pull you down also.
It is not a children's game, it's a man's game. It is sad that some people can't cope with it. One way of success in cricket in this country is to be able to cope with the pressure.
Karan Thapar: So you are telling the players, ‘Ignore the press particularly when it’s when idolizing because it’s dangerous to take that seriously’?
M A K Pataudi: All I’m saying is that the press and the fans should not get too desperate when India loses and should not get too much of a high when India wins.
Karan Thapar: What about when the press calls players names like Princes of Kolkata , Nawab of Najafgarh,
Sultans of Swing or even Little Master?
Would you tell them, ‘Look, these are the wrong ways of characterizing players and you should help them keep themselves more level-headed’?
M A K Pataudi: No. I’m not going to teach the press anything. It knows what it wants.
Karan Thapar: The Board it seems is very keen to send a young team to Bangladesh. There's speculation in the papers that some of the more senior players may not be selected for the Bangladesh tour.
Do you think that's wise, or does that in some sense smack you of certain vindictiveness against senior players?
M A K Pataudi: No, I think the Board wants to limit the number of matches that cricketers play, because they become unfit, and they get injured and so on. It is possible that this is the philosophy behind their thinking.
I think in a Test series the best team should go. But the best team for India is not necessarily some of the senior players.
Karan Thapar: So this may be a good opportunity to give an opening to the younger talent to see how it performs in stressful conditions?
M A K Pataudi: Well presumably, Bangladesh did beat India, but most of us will be a little surprised if it beats India again - consistently, should I say. I think it's a good time to blood people also, but the people who are being blooded, have to have some talent also.
Karan Thapar: Many people are also concerned about team spirit. Under the circumstances, how difficult would it be to rebuilt camaraderie?
M A K Pataudi: I think it’s always difficult after you’ve had an abysmal loss and everyone is depressed and demoralized. But the Captain is doing a perfectly good job and they have a good coach.
The players themselves have realized that it’s not an individual game and for them to perform, all 11 have to perform and for them to make money, all 11 will have to perform well.
Karan Thapar: So you are an optimist to think that despite the obstacles, team spirit can be fairly quickly and effectively recreated?
M A K Pataudi: With the right people at the right place, yes.
Karan Thapar: Tiger Pataudi, a pleasure talking to you.
M A K Pataudi: Thank You.
(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)
 |
 |
 |
|
Comments (41)
More on Cricketnext Right Now
MOST VIEWED NEWS
PHOTOGALLERY
