City Bias

By Fredrick Franklin

Are some people we trust as legends taking their power too far and giving us highly biased opinions?

Sunny Gavaskar must learn not to contribute a column to one of the nation's premier dailies when in fact there is no 'juice' to offer. Today's column (17th October 2011) was about Ajinkya Rahane needing to cement his place. Smacks of the mentality of former cricket giants Mumbai in deciding the nation's affairs in cricket.

Sunny: A picture of bias?

Many people like Sunny must realise that that old order hath changeth and Mumbai rules no more, no doubt they have a classy Ranji Trophy team and the private franchise Mumbai Indians won the global Champions League Twenty20 tournament. Everyone acknowledges that fine ability. However, the Indian team is composed of players either from the north or the south of India, save Sachin Tendulkar the legendary old guard who plays selectively to prolong his career.

Even the low profile Gautam Gambhir constitutes a better force to reckon with as does R Ashwin from Chennai in the south who's showing his uncanny ability with the ball. Nobody really craves to see a Mumbai-ite as once they did Tendulkar, Manjrekar and Kambli for example. There are replacements and these have a different edge. Therefore Gavaskar's focus is purely on a Mumbai-ite cementing his place in the Indian team.

Well, no doubt Rahane has shown ability but let the man prove himself. Why must we have these Godfathers in the shadows (Sunny). Why reams and columns about the man from his city? Does Sunny bhai want to take over Indian cricket again? And what has he shown that elevates him to a better level? Neither astute cricket knowledge off the field nor objective SWOT analyses in the commentator's box. Surely, the ''master batter' Sunny would defend himself that he was merely providing opinion and to ask us to look at the facts, however, shouldn't he change his style when being consistently perceived as a 'home-pitcher?'

Ravi Shastri, epic in his winning the Champion of Champions Audi car in the World Championship of Cricket in 1985 was after all initially blooded by Sunil Gavaskar who sent an SOS while on the tour to New Zealand in 1981. It's also famously known that Ravi Shastri was the only bowler in the famous '85 championship who bowled all his allotted 10 overs in each match, thanks to his patronising skipper Gavaskar. And Shastri also opened the batting, another innovation that Sunny bhai though of for him on a Pakistan tour, owing to the 'circumstances' of the moment. Now, wouldn't a stodgy opener get more scope to get those 50s and stake a claim to the Champions of Champions prize? And all the while, the ebullient K Srikanth got the vital runs to help India ahead.

Shastri performed but is a Sunny-promoted man?

Anyway, now Sunny and Ravi rule the roost in providing the dullest, leave alone biased Indian commentary while also not being sufficiently proficient in the English language. They are paid 355,000 USD (1.6 crore Indian rupees) just to speak the Indian cricket board's gospel in the commentary box. A sad case of a feudal landlord (the board) as one journalist stated wanting to command the dominions in an utterly unfair show for Indian sports lovers.

We may have seen one movement like Anna Hazare's in the more important political spheres but now, who will lead the other revolution? That is, to see that Indians are not denied true and skillful opinion.

Nasser Needlessly Tainted by India

By Fredrick Franklin

India takes its off-field duels to absurd levels while not understanding matters in their entirety


So India struggles on in this one-day series. In the midst of the main action, one must take cognizance of some off-field, rather commentator’s box developments where the ESPN STAR channel seems to have overreacted. Indeed it might be a case of the whole Indian nation doing so.

Nasser: A good man hunted by India's cricket samurai

Nasser Hussain was banned from commentating for “calling some Indian fielders donkeys,” as was reported. However we must look at the other view. Here was a pragmatic commentator merely referring to some questionable fielders as standing in the field. In other words, about fielders merely carrying a load and not being mobile or fast.

While it’s hard to qualify the referred pack animal as distinguished either through the popular representation of Shrek the ogre’s companion and that distinguished star Eddie Murphy lent his voice to it, it’s unlikely that the candid Nasser will defend his statement. Simply because it would seem like an act of defence where of course none is necessary.

After all, if you’re not guilty of saying anything really wrong, why would you defend and invite more criticism? This is a good time to evaluate if in our country, we’re really prone to taking literal meanings of words whereas at other times we love to hear English or American humour. Where is our sense of understanding the real meaning, no doubt it’s a language we’ve acquired (and learned) from the English people?

The future of good camaradiere between Indian commentators and their particularly good English ones seems bleak because by a strange quirk of fate, it was Nasser Hussain who entered into an argument with Ravi Shastri about DRS whereas he was only stating an opinion. Again, we have a looming case of Rahul Dravid’s caught-behind not being detected by the DRS, therefore furthering Ravi and the BCCI’s cause that the DRS is not a 100 percent technology.

However, the percentage of correct dismissals has gone up to 98 percent with DRS (95 percent without DRS) therefore there is ample proof that the DRS should be good for the game. Undoubtedly, one bad DRS decision where one’s favourite batsman is involved and at a crucial time may put the technology out of favour especially when the unipolar cricket power like India is involved. The knives come out almost immediately after. The paper press too goes about home support with no real care about being a ‘guardian angel of democracy,’ meaning without looking at all angles.

We must broaden our vision and as the question “Are we really considering everything or just settling old scores?” Even if we need to, do we really pick on blameless individuals? What do we ourselves become after all this?

India’s a great country, with a proud cricketing heritage. Let’s not toe the line too far by using our clout. And let’s reserve judgement until we’re sure we’ve understood things in their correct context. Hope to get back to the on-field action soon anyway!

Change Indian cricket commentators

Apart from the fact that 'feudal' Indian commentators are backed by the Indian cricket board, what sort of quality commentary do they provide? Are they robbing us of entertainment from the country's biggest passion? Do they just collect their paychecks for virtually no services rendered, no improvement made? Can we get them to resign?

It's time somebody forced some Indian commentators to step down from the box. Ravi Shastri, Sunil Gavaskar and Harsha Bhogle add 'nothing to the picture.'

"Today, tell Dravid, how many km to walk on water" :(

With, Bhogle's "Just get a feeling that the game ...." , and giving a hard opinion by saying "I feel this youngster...." is he indicating he's played such a high level of cricket that he can mouth off like that?

Sunil Gavaskar, a pillar of Indian batting no doubt in the 1970s and 80s, is pushing his profile too far. Picture this, a batsman plays a shot on the legside for a boundary. When the replays come on, the pudgy Mumbai-ite goes "See how he brings the bottom-hand into play."

Boring :(

What bottom hand? It's obvious since both hands are holding the ball, a part of the bottom hand will come 'into play' for shots on the on-side.

Ravi Shastri's 'tracer bullet' comment has bored many Indians to a premature death. Yet he has the gall to not listen to what Nasser Hussain is saying in a recent argument he had. How much clout do Ravi and the likes want to convey because he's backed by the BCCI, one of the most powerful sports bodies in the world?

"That's gone straight as an arrow" :(

Some respite is there in the form of Saurav Ganguly. Dada analyzes the moments and definitely makes himself his salary's worth. L Sivaramkrishan, while not possessing any great repertoire at least has the decency to talk to his strengths and not venture into unknown territory.

A good analyst :)

Sanjay Manjrekar, while slightly better than Ravi and Sunil definitely does not belong there on a regular basis. Good new aspirants that must be tried out are VB Chandrasekhar, a former India player, who although not brilliant during the fagend of a long day is immaculate in diction, observation and grammar.

VB Chandrashekar worthy of a seat :)

Like the Anna Hazare campaign which rooted for a better Indian, Indians must also contribute their opinion on the entertainers. We need a change of guard in the commentary box.