Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Here is a transcript of the chat between Ravi Shastri, David Gower and Ian Botham during the first bad light delay on Sky sports..

---
First bad-light delay Discussion between Gower, Shastri and Botham


RS : Indians bowled badly in the first session and helped the English.

Then Ian, RS and DG discuss the Strauss dismissal.

Then they discuss Strauss’s drop, his inconsistency…he needed a break to comeback.

Then they discuss KP’s issue with break and at the same time attending a sponsor event. Botham says he did not really play that much. Strauss and Vaughn had breaks due to non-participation in ODIs and injury.

Which brings DG to discussing the Indian situation with breaks…

DG: On the topic of demands on international cricketers, the Indian board seems to be shoveling in tournaments left, right and center.. in the middle east, Ireland.. they are playing a lot of extra cricket..way above the commitments they have to the ICC. What is the attitude of the Indian players towards this?

RS: From the BCCI? I think they have been greedy..

DG: OK, talk about them first

RS: OK.. let me talk about them first. Their coffers are full. They are the richest body in the game. Yet, they still want to make more money. This is not good for the game. I think they are sacrificing quality for quantity. (with eyebrows raised) I think they have realized this now.. because the players are beginning to feel the heat.

DG: that was my original q.. how are the players reacting to this.

RS: they are real realizing that they cannot play the whole season. It is impossible. India is playing more cricket than any other country in the world. In the sense, they will need 2 full teams.. not for the test side. For tests, you put your strongest side out..but for ODIs they will need a pool of 25 cricketers.. if you were to survive the full year.

DG: That is interesting.. and that is what happened with the Asia cup.. when they presented a side without the superstars.. the sponsors said “hang on, we want everyone there”. So clearly, you cant have it both ways

RS: You cant. That is the reason why SRT, SG and RD have opted out of the 20-20 world cup.. because India go back after the England tour..then they got australia, then Pak and then the winter in Australia.. so for 1 particular player to last these 12 months is asking a bit much and it is bound to take its toll


DG: what about these back-to-back tests when touring..

IB and DG discuss why players have asked for shorter tours etc. So they cant complain about playing back-to-back sides. Then they discuss central contracts vs playing county cricket, players breaking down etc.

DG: So where does the commercial side of this come in? We played when the commercial pressures were there but were considerably less.. but again in India, someone like Sachin where his endorsement opportunities are limitless.. You (pointing at RS) used to manage him and you used to limit the # of opportunities taken by him, you used to cherry-pick the best for him..


RS: I mean, I tried to..and limited him because he just did not have the time. I think now the BCCI has stepped in and are talking to the players…and as central contracts are being put in place .. as to the # of days they can give to sponsors. Which I think is fair enough…because it works both ways.. the money is good when you sign the contract, but then the sponsors want their pound of flesh.. they want the x # of days…but you don’t have the time. So what BCCI is saying is that curtail the # of days. You can for example give 30-35 days for endorsements.. now it is upto the player .. if you want to do 35 ads in those days…but no more than the 30-35 days. Period.

DG: So are they players in agreement with that

RS: I think so.. the bottomline is this David..  instead of individuals getting the endorsements ..rather than the team.. that benefits the team more. Now that is happening more because the Indian team has now 3-4 sponsors…on top of that, the individual gets to do 3-4 individual endorsements..which I think is more than good enough


DG discusses this with IB re: KP’s endorsement potential.. and his use of days off to do endorsements.. IB says stop whingeing about the amount of cricket.  The balance has to be struck the player .. RS jumps in saying that KP within 2 years of cricket feeling tired is surprising…IB says go score runs…you will not be tired.

Continuing the conversation.. RS says: try dropping an Indian player..no chance.. you have to say “he has been rested”. You know like when I took over as the cricket manager for the BD tour..they rested Ganguly and Tendulkar for the one-day series.. they had to say “rest” (with emphasis).. because you (cant do that - shaking his head)... even if you ask them do you want to be dropped.. they would say “no way”.. because then the endorsement angle comes into play..because they have to ..from the sponsor’s point of view, their “mugs” have to be seen on the television..they have to be seen as doing the job (motioning with his hand and playing a batting stroke). So you have to strike the right balance. So when you are doing a job (pointing to IB referring to KP’s attitude), you cannot be tired.

DG: Ok .. lets get back to our game.. Vaughn’s innings.
---
Hmm...

[LosingNow]

1. How much influence do sponsors have on team selection? Directly through influence on selectors or indirectly through inflluence on BCCI?
2. Are SG, SRT, RD (and others) making decisions that might be designed to protect their sponsorship interests rather than the larger interests of Indian cricket? Could they be playing ODIs for this reason?
3. How much can we extrapolate from this nugget of info from RS? SG's comeback, VVS' and Kaif's on and off chopping...
4. Has RS "inadvertantly" exposed Indian cricket's ugly under-belly?

[sgusa]

1. How much influence do sponsors have on team selection? Directly through influence on selectors or indirectly through inflluence on BCCI?
2. Are SG, SRT, RD (and others) making decisions that might be designed to protect their sponsorship interests rather than the larger interests of Indian cricket? Could they be playing ODIs for this reason?
3. How much can we extrapolate from this nugget of info from RS? SG's comeback, VVS' and Kaif's on and off chopping...
4. Has RS "inadvertantly" exposed Indian cricket's ugly under-belly?

 

<---------------- Me |     ->>>>>>>>>>>>  :TEN FOOT POLE: <this issue>

[LosingNow]

1. How much influence do sponsors have on team selection? Directly through influence on selectors or indirectly through inflluence on BCCI?
2. Are SG, SRT, RD (and others) making decisions that might be designed to protect their sponsorship interests rather than the larger interests of Indian cricket? Could they be playing ODIs for this reason?
3. How much can we extrapolate from this nugget of info from RS? SG's comeback, VVS' and Kaif's on and off chopping...
4. Has RS "inadvertantly" exposed Indian cricket's ugly under-belly?

 

<---------------- Me |     ->>>>>>>>>>>>  :TEN FOOT POLE: <this issue>

Why ?
You have no thoughts on RS' comments?

[Cover Point]

its those blue stars

Otherwise you just dont talk about Maharathis and them being selfish on this DG and get away with it

[LosingNow]

its those blue stars

Otherwise you just dont talk about Maharathis and them being selfish on this DG and get away with it

come on.. looks like RS is bashing everyone here.. SRT, SG and RD.

[sgusa]

its those blue stars

Otherwise you just dont talk about Maharathis and them being selfish on this DG and get away with it

come on.. looks like RS is bashing everyone here.. SRT, SG and RD.

True, But the one published issue of a star being dropped and finding his way back due to a plethora of reasons (one of which MAY be performance ) is fodder for a future war. Ergo my initial comment

[WicketView]

Here is a transcript of the chat between Ravi Shastri, David Gower and Ian Botham during the first bad light delay on Sky sports..

---
First bad-light delay Discussion between Gower, Shastri and Botham


RS : Indians bowled badly in the first session and helped the English.

Then Ian, RS and DG discuss the Strauss dismissal.

Then they discuss Strauss’s drop, his inconsistency…he needed a break to comeback.

Then they discuss KP’s issue with break and at the same time attending a sponsor event. Botham says he did not really play that much. Strauss and Vaughn had breaks due to non-participation in ODIs and injury.

Which brings DG to discussing the Indian situation with breaks…

DG: On the topic of demands on international cricketers, the Indian board seems to be shoveling in tournaments left, right and center.. in the middle east, Ireland.. they are playing a lot of extra cricket..way above the commitments they have to the ICC. What is the attitude of the Indian players towards this?

RS: From the BCCI? I think they have been greedy..

DG: OK, talk about them first

RS: OK.. let me talk about them first. Their coffers are full. They are the richest body in the game. Yet, they still want to make more money. This is not good for the game. I think they are sacrificing quality for quantity. (with eyebrows raised) I think they have realized this now.. because the players are beginning to feel the heat.

DG: that was my original q.. how are the players reacting to this.

RS: they are real realizing that they cannot play the whole season. It is impossible. India is playing more cricket than any other country in the world. In the sense, they will need 2 full teams.. not for the test side. For tests, you put your strongest side out..but for ODIs they will need a pool of 25 cricketers.. if you were to survive the full year.

DG: That is interesting.. and that is what happened with the Asia cup.. when they presented a side without the superstars.. the sponsors said “hang on, we want everyone there”. So clearly, you cant have it both ways

RS: You cant. That is the reason why SRT, SG and RD have opted out of the 20-20 world cup.. because India go back after the England tour..then they got australia, then Pak and then the winter in Australia.. so for 1 particular player to last these 12 months is asking a bit much and it is bound to take its toll


DG: what about these back-to-back tests when touring..

IB and DG discuss why players have asked for shorter tours etc. So they cant complain about playing back-to-back sides. Then they discuss central contracts vs playing county cricket, players breaking down etc.

DG: So where does the commercial side of this come in? We played when the commercial pressures were there but were considerably less.. but again in India, someone like Sachin where his endorsement opportunities are limitless.. You (pointing at RS) used to manage him and you used to limit the # of opportunities taken by him, you used to cherry-pick the best for him..

Does thismean when RJS was the Indian manager, or was he Tendulkar's manager (like MM)  at some point?

RS: I mean, I tried to..and limited him because he just did not have the time. I think now the BCCI has stepped in and are talking to the players…and as central contracts are being put in place .. as to the # of days they can give to sponsors. Which I think is fair enough…because it works both ways.. the money is good when you sign the contract, but then the sponsors want their pound of flesh.. they want the x # of days…but you don’t have the time. So what BCCI is saying is that curtail the # of days. You can for example give 30-35 days for endorsements.. now it is upto the player .. if you want to do 35 ads in those days…but no more than the 30-35 days. Period.
DG: So are they players in agreement with that

RS: I think so.. the bottomline is this David..  instead of individuals getting the endorsements ..rather than the team.. that benefits the team more. Now that is happening more because the Indian team has now 3-4 sponsors…on top of that, the individual gets to do 3-4 individual endorsements..which I think is more than good enough

I don't understand the bold portions. One way I could interpret this: the present board contracts demand that players not work on endorsement issues for more than 35 days a year. And RJS says that this is good. Is this how you guys are reading this?

DG discusses this with IB re: KP’s endorsement potential.. and his use of days off to do endorsements.. IB says stop whingeing about the amount of cricket.  The balance has to be struck the player .. RS jumps in saying that KP within 2 years of cricket feeling tired is surprising…IB says go score runs…you will not be tired.

Continuing the conversation.. RS says: try dropping an Indian player..no chance.. you have to say “he has been rested”. You know like when I took over as the cricket manager for the BD tour..they rested Ganguly and Tendulkar for the one-day series.. they had to say “rest” (with emphasis).. because you (cant do that - shaking his head)... even if you ask them do you want to be dropped.. they would say “no way”.. because then the endorsement angle comes into play..because they have to ..from the sponsor’s point of view, their “mugs” have to be seen on the television..they have to be seen as doing the job (motioning with his hand and playing a batting stroke). So you have to strike the right balance. So when you are doing a job (pointing to IB referring to KP’s attitude), you cannot be tired.

This again is unclear: Who is they ? (Kban was suggesting that they is the board but there is no such indication here. But here he also say 'they rested G&T', whereas he probably mean to say they dropped these two. Also the 'because you cant do that' part has not been given a reason. It can't be connected to the second part of the paragraph, since to drop someone, the selection board does not require that person's consent. Possible reasons for the statement include sponsorship issues of the board , internal politics of the board, or public opinion.

Now for the second part of it ... about players. If I understand him correctly (recalling the initial part of this which I colored in blue) what he is suggesting is as follows:

The players might actually enhance their cricketing life by voluntarily taking rest for some series. However, they don't do so, because this would mean that their brand value goes down. However, they are finally understanding that they are being hurt in the long run and the 20-20 stuff is a reaction to that realization.

Nothing explosive really.

If I may add, that it is not just the endorsement issue that makes one want to play more games. This is a natural reaction of sportsmen. They also know that not performing (even if it has been for resting) takes them off the public mind; or even the selectorial ones.

DG: Ok .. lets get back to our game.. Vaughn’s innings.
---
Hmm...

[LosingNow]

Does thismean when RJS was the Indian manager, or was he Tendulkar's manager (like MM)  at some point?

Tendulkar's manager.. he was managing his endorsements

I don't understand the bold portions. One way I could interpret this: the present board contracts demand that players not work on endorsement issues for more than 35 days a year. And RJS says that this is good. Is this how you guys are reading this?

He is referring to the upcoming or to-be-signed (which has been going on for 1 year now) contracts

This again is unclear: Who is they ? (Kban was suggesting that they is the board but there is no such indication here. But here he also say 'they rested G&T', whereas he probably mean to say they dropped these two. Also the 'because you cant do that' part has not been given a reason. It can't be connected to the second part of the paragraph, since to drop someone, the selection board does not require that person's consent. Possible reasons for the statement include sponsorship issues of the board , internal politics of the board, or public opinion.

Agree .. it is not clear who they is .. if you mean BCCI or Selectors. I personally see the whole splitting hairs between selectors and BCCI (I know Kban was alluding to that in the chat).. as far as this discussion is concerned... irrelevant.

Bottomline: whether BCCI wanted it or the Selectors wanted it or both wanted it.. they could not "drop" them.. they had to "rest" them (whereas an Agarkar could be "dropped").. and seems like sponsors or at least, the player's sponsorship deals were influencing this.

So the q is, if sponsors can influence "rest" vs "drop".. what else are they influencing or have influenced?..and has Indian cricket suffered because of this additional constraint in decision-making.

[WicketView]

Does thismean when RJS was the Indian manager, or was he Tendulkar's manager (like MM)  at some point?

Tendulkar's manager.. he was managing his endorsements

Aah ... I was not aware of it.

I don't understand the bold portions. One way I could interpret this: the present board contracts demand that players not work on endorsement issues for more than 35 days a year. And RJS says that this is good. Is this how you guys are reading this?

He is referring to the upcoming or to-be-signed (which has been going on for 1 year now) contracts

OK. Personally I don't think this restriction is either necessary or beneficial in the long run. But that is a different story for another time.

This again is unclear: Who is they ? (Kban was suggesting that they is the board but there is no such indication here. But here he also say 'they rested G&T', whereas he probably mean to say they dropped these two. Also the 'because you cant do that' part has not been given a reason. It can't be connected to the second part of the paragraph, since to drop someone, the selection board does not require that person's consent. Possible reasons for the statement include sponsorship issues of the board , internal politics of the board, or public opinion.

Agree .. it is not clear who they is .. if you mean BCCI or Selectors. I personally see the whole splitting hairs between selectors and BCCI (I know Kban was alluding to that in the chat).. as far as this discussion is concerned... irrelevant.

I was trying to reference our conversation, but I agree it is somewhat irrevelant here.

Bottomline: whether BCCI wanted it or the Selectors wanted it or both wanted it.. they could not "drop" them.. they had to "rest" them (whereas an Agarkar could be "dropped").. and seems like sponsors or at least, the player's sponsorship deals were influencing this.

Well, from the transcript you posted, it did not seem that RJS said that this distinction had anything to do with sponsorships. He did not give any reason. There are a number of possible reasons and I put down the first three that came to mind.

So the q is, if sponsors can influence "rest" vs "drop".. what else are they influencing or have influenced?..and has Indian cricket suffered because of this additional constraint in decision-making.

Well, whether or not they influenced rest vs drop; the risk of sponsors influencing decisions is always there.

[keep-it-cool]

Two things that come out of this for me
a) Players are not willing to take a break, because it would affect their endorsement deals.
b) It also probably means that the BCCI cannot take a hard stance on dropping a star player (unless someone really bites the bullet and forces it to go along) - because, of course, the team / game sponsors would also put a lot of pressure against such a move. Case in point - the recent Afro Asian Cup, where television coverage was suddenly pulled off because none of the leading players were involved.

Net net, it does not prove or mean that players wilfully underperform or go against team wishes due to sponsorships ... but, clearly, the so called "financial pressures" which a lot of people think do not mean anything are definitely there in the background - for everyone concered with the game.

[ruchir]

Quote from LN transcript:

You can for example give 30-35 days for endorsements.. now it is upto the player .. if you want to do 35 ads in those days…but no more than the 30-35 days. Period.

Earlier, there were news items that SRT or MSD or YS were on tour and were shooting for Ads in the rest days between games. Even Shoaib Akhtar shot for Ads in India when PAK came here. I know such things are not happening now. However, it is doubtful if this experiment will be successful. I mean, currently no player shoots during a series. They don't shoot during camp / preparation days. They only shoot during off time. So, if they get say, 100 off days, why should there be a limit on them to shoot for 35 of those 100 days? That's something for BCCI / RS to clarify more.


Quote from LN transcript:

try dropping an Indian player..no chance.. you have to say “he has been rested”. You know like when I took over as the cricket manager for the BD tour..they rested Ganguly and Tendulkar for the one-day series.. they had to say “rest” (with emphasis)..

Here, IMO, RS clearly says that the seniors are not "dropped", they are "rested" temporarily. Whether it is BCCI doing it or selectors, the same thing happens. Why seniors are not dropped, but rested? That comes in the next quote.


Quote from LN transcript:

because then the endorsement angle comes into play..because they have to ..from the sponsor’s point of view, their “mugs” have to be seen on the television..they have to be seen as doing the job (motioning with his hand and playing a batting stroke).

Again, what RS is doing here, IMO, is that he is making a statement from sponsor's POV. He is saying that if players are declared "dropped", it hurts the sponsors. He also says in another quote that if it was left to the players, they would just keep on playing. That's natural on human level of thinking. However, he says that it is difficult for any party (BCCI or Selectors) to "drop" a senior player. Why? Because it hurts the sponsors. So, how does sponsor's hurt matter to any party (BCCI or Selectors)? That is what you have to think about. Why is it important for BCCI or selector to FEEL that seniors should not be dropped, but rested, because it will hurt the sponsors. That too, possibly individual sponsors. They only reason I can think of is that these sponsors have some hold over these parties. This refers to the selector/BCCI - sponsor nexus that some ex-BCCI official was hinting at some time ago.

Sponsors have money. They don't wanna invest crores in a player, only to see him dropped. So, after investing crores, they invest a few lakh more to ensure that the player stays in the team (unless he is taken out via a media storm). That's not above the realm of believability. Sponsors have enough money to bribe 5 selectors, 2-3 BCCI officials and ensure the place of their favorite player. After investing 50 crores on a player over 4/5 years, what's the harm in investing 60-70 lakh more (8-10K per person) to make sure he plays for those 4-5 years? I think this is what RS was hinting at.

Now, if this was about SRT, SG, or even RD (in ODIs), I could understand. But I don't understand the case of VS. He too had a few sponsors, some common with RD. Yet he is out of Tests and ODIs. That is something I don't understand.

[WicketView]

Quote from LN transcript:

You can for example give 30-35 days for endorsements.. now it is upto the player .. if you want to do 35 ads in those days…but no more than the 30-35 days. Period.

Earlier, there were news items that SRT or MSD or YS were on tour and were shooting for Ads in the rest days between games. Even Shoaib Akhtar shot for Ads in India when PAK came here. I know such things are not happening now. However, it is doubtful if this experiment will be successful. I mean, currently no player shoots during a series. They don't shoot during camp / preparation days. They only shoot during off time. So, if they get say, 100 off days, why should there be a limit on them to shoot for 35 of those 100 days? That's something for BCCI / RS to clarify more.
Quote from LN transcript:

try dropping an Indian player..no chance.. you have to say “he has been rested”. You know like when I took over as the cricket manager for the BD tour..they rested Ganguly and Tendulkar for the one-day series.. they had to say “rest” (with emphasis)..

Here, IMO, RS clearly says that the seniors are not "dropped", they are "rested" temporarily. Whether it is BCCI doing it or selectors, the same thing happens. Why seniors are not dropped, but rested? That comes in the next quote.

What you quote as the 'next quote' is not quite what he said immediately after according to the transcripts. The next part of the statement that precedes this is

they rested Ganguly and Tendulkar for the one-day series.. they had to say “rest” (with emphasis).. because you (cant do that - shaking his head)... even if you ask them do you want to be dropped. ...

IMO, what he is saying is completely unclear. He does not specify why you cannot 'do that' . Is he really talking about dropping? Remember what he was talking about

they are real realizing that they cannot play the whole season. It is impossible. India is playing more cricket than any other country in the world. In the sense, they will need 2 full teams.. not for the test side. For tests, you put your strongest side out..but for ODIs they will need a pool of 25 cricketers.. if you were to survive the full year.
...
RS: You cant. That is the reason why SRT, SG and RD have opted out of the 20-20 world cup.. because India go back after the England tour..then they got australia, then Pak and then the winter in Australia.. so for 1 particular player to last these 12 months is asking a bit much and it is bound to take its toll

This was not a discussion on whether the players deserved to be in or not; it was a discussion on whether they are getting burnt out. He is talking about the need to actually rest (in the correct usage of the term) them in order to prolong their sporting careers. So, I don't know why he says they had to say 'rest' with emphasis and I think he just got muddled up for a moment. If in reality a player deserved to be dropped, the question of 'even if you asked them .... ' does not arise.

I think this whole paragraph starts to make more sense if you think he was trying to say:
'In India you can't rest these players. Even if you ask them they say they don't want rest'

Quote from LN transcript:

because then the endorsement angle comes into play..because they have to ..from the sponsor’s point of view, their “mugs” have to be seen on the television..they have to be seen as doing the job (motioning with his hand and playing a batting stroke).

Again, I think this means players don't want to rest because they lose brand value. This is where I think that the brand value part is a small part of the argument. World over, sportspersons  (who can be described as people with short careers)   push themselves to the edge of human capacity, sometimes by taking pain killer after pain killer, cortisone injections and what not. This is due to the combination of a small window of time to fulfill sporting ambitions, fame and endorsements. Naturally, they would want to maximize the number of games they play by getting the optimal mix of rest (prolonging their careers) and physical hardship (sandwitching more games into their crammed schedule).

Again, what RS is doing here, IMO, is that he is making a statement from sponsor's POV. He is saying that if players are declared "dropped", it hurts the sponsors. He also says in another quote that if it was left to the players, they would just keep on playing. That's natural on human level of thinking. However, he says that it is difficult for any party (BCCI or Selectors) to "drop" a senior player. Why? Because it hurts the sponsors. So, how does sponsor's hurt matter to any party (BCCI or Selectors)? That is what you have to think about. Why is it important for BCCI or selector to FEEL that seniors should not be dropped, but rested, because it will hurt the sponsors. That too, possibly individual sponsors. They only reason I can think of is that these sponsors have some hold over these parties. This refers to the selector/BCCI - sponsor nexus that some ex-BCCI official was hinting at some time ago.

Sponsors have money. They don't wanna invest crores in a player, only to see him dropped. So, after investing crores, they invest a few lakh more to ensure that the player stays in the team (unless he is taken out via a media storm). That's not above the realm of believability. Sponsors have enough money to bribe 5 selectors, 2-3 BCCI officials and ensure the place of their favorite player. After investing 50 crores on a player over 4/5 years, what's the harm in investing 60-70 lakh more (8-10K per person) to make sure he plays for those 4-5 years? I think this is what RS was hinting at.

Now, if this was about SRT, SG, or even RD (in ODIs), I could understand. But I don't understand the case of VS. He too had a few sponsors, some common with RD. Yet he is out of Tests and ODIs. That is something I don't understand.

I think we are trying to read stuff that is not here. Hence the inconsistencies that you point to. Why VS, even SG was out of it for a reasonable length of time. RD had been out too at some point, and SRT has had long periods of absence due to injuries.