Print

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

[dhruvdeepak]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/04/16/sctres16.xml&sSheet=/sport/2006/04/16/ixcrick.html

 Trescothick's virus version of events verges on the ridiculous
By Michael Atherton
(Filed: 16/04/2006)



England have had a splendid winter. Played four series and lost three, but splendid nevertheless. Didn't you know? But for a small collapse in Multan things could have been so much different in Pakistan. The victory in Mumbai brought a moral victory, if not a real one. The one-day team are coming along nicely, thank you very much, and the crushing victory in the sixth one-day international in Jamshedpur showed that there really wasn't very much between the teams. After all, if they think we're gullible enough to believe that Marcus Trescothick came home because of a mystery virus then we're gullible enough to believe anything.

The purpose here is not to pour scorn on Trescothick, who is clearly having a difficult time of it. Suffice to say, that his, or the ECB's or his agent's ill-conceived exercise in news management this week (in the aftermath, no one was saying and phones were switched off) has put a lot of noses out of joint: the England team management in India, who are made to look foolish; the England team doctor, who is made to look even more foolish, and the media corps, who rightly abided by Duncan Fletcher's plea for Trescothick's privacy to be respected, and who now feel let down. Honesty works both ways. The next time the 'red tops' are asked to respect someone's privacy for 'family, personal reasons' they might not be so accommodating.

Everybody was willing to move on from the Trescothick issue, until, that is, the player revisited it again this week, and provided a little digital alteration. It is acknowledged by all that Trescothick is an excellent, and often under-rated, England player and that he has especially been missed during the one-day series. There is also genuine sympathy for the players over the amount of cricket that is played. (The secondary reasons that Trescothick talked about in his interview - the fatigue and the nights away from home etc - were entirely plausible). Most people looked forward to seeing him back in England colours doing what he does best.

That is still the case. But before then, journalists are right to query what they were asked to believe this week. To query why no mention was initially made of this mystery virus, when England's team doctor gave a full medical bulletin on everyone else; to query why, if it was a virus, they were told he had gone home for 'family, personal reasons'; to query why those 'family, personal reasons' were changed this week to 'personal reasons,' and to query what kind of virus makes you break down in tears in the middle of a game and lasts exactly the length of an England tour. All right, we're not exactly talking weapons of mass destruction here, but it is important nonetheless.

Why is it important to question? Because news management, the manipulation of the truth, spinning - whatever you want to call it - is increasingly the business of sports organisations and sports stars. When I first played for England there was no press liaison officer, and the organising of press conferences and player interviews was the responsibility of the tour manager. Things were pretty chaotic and amateurish: players were given no guidance and it was simply a case of thinking on your feet and making mistakes, plenty of them in my case. Things are much more professional now and with the advent of the internet, of immediate access to news, of 24-hour rolling news, no one would dispute that players are in need of a structure which is designed to protect them.

But something more sinister is now starting to happen. Instead of simply co-ordinating and organising we have officials spinning and manipulating. When the Chelsea forward, Didier Drogba, admitted in a post-match television interview two weeks ago that he handled the ball and dived deliberately, journalists asked for a transcript of the interview. They were given a carefully edited version. Why did the Lions rugby team want Alastair Campbell to travel with them to New Zealand? No 10's former spin-meister was hardly likely to be content with simply organising press conferences. Then there are agents, increasingly mindful of the sums their clients can earn from commercial endorsements, and paranoid about any utterance that might tarnish a client's carefully buffed-up image.

Out here, in India, the process is in danger of going one stage further. The Indian cricket board treat Nimbus, the production company to whom they sold the television rights, like an in-house production company. Nimbus are petrified of upsetting their 'employer', for fear of not getting any future rights, so any criticism of the BCCI is strictly frowned upon.

Local commentators are already asked to wear the BCCI logo and are asked not to mention sensitive subjects like the spat between Greg Chappell and Sourav Ganguly, or controversial selection issues, no matter how germane they might be to the action. There has been talk that eventually the BCCI will have their own cricket channel. No doubt the viewers will get to see only what the BCCI want them to see and, with compliant commentators on board, they will hear only what the BCCI want them to hear.

Eventually, if that process is allowed to go unchecked, you get what happened at the Masters this week, when Tiger Woods mentioned the unmentionable and most US newspapers and television networks airbrushed out the word 'spaz'. Golf coverage in America - anodyne, saccharine and dull - creates a fake and happy world, not a real one; it creates plastic golfers, not real human beings. Sport is interesting as much for the failures and the flaws of the people who play it as their successes and sports lovers are entitled to know, warts and all.

Fortunately, in sport, certain things - results and statistics, for example - remain absolute, no matter what people say. Much else, though, is open to interpretation. And when that interpretation is so utterly implausible, as it was this week, then ridicule is the only proper response.

Before you know it they'll be trying to convince us that England's winter on the sub-continent has been a resounding success.

[Sahir]

Hmmm...this is an extremely interesting and thought-provoking article, particularly the part about the effects of in-house production.  It was clear that Nimbus' production with the BCCI logo plastered everywhere was quasi in-house and we all had repeatedly heard the BCCI were looking to start their own channel.  Initially, I thought this was a factastic idea, not only because it would increase revenue, but primarily because of the forced importance placed on domestic cricket and its television coverage.  I know Nimbus is already required to produce a certain number of days of domestic cricket.  That really is fantastic, but I must say, the drawback Mike Atherton has rightly pointed out never really occurred to me.  The commentators and production would all be working for the BCCI and would, even without explicit intructions from the Board, implicitly not want to upset their employer.  That is really bad.  We really need open and honest discussion on the actions of the BCCI.  We already saw a bit of it as we could see a slight hesitancy of the commentators to really discuss the Ganguly issue, which at the time I thought was an attempt at being politically correct, but now see otherwise.  However, I'm torn, really torn.  I REALLY, REALLY want that coverage of domestic cricket because I think it is absolutely vital to our future plans of improving our first-class structure and also making the selectoral process much more transparent.  But at what cost?  A bit of compromising of freedom of speech, the press and ability to know information?  Toughie, real toughie.  What do you guys think?  How should the dilemma be resolved?  I can draw a bit of comparison to Ten Sports which seems a complete mouthpiece for the PCB with commentators that kiss some serious Pakistani butt and even going to the extent of pretty much not showing Akhtar's bowling action properly with ultramotion, at least not until Greg Chappell rightly raised the bogey, but that's another debate.

[dhruvdeepak]

the implications of Atherton's article are sinister. The BCCI controlling what the media is able to comment on? That is unacceptable. It is having a mouthpiece not only to misinform the public, but to protect/hide its own interests whatever they may be.

I understand the need for domestic coverage of the sport. But certain things like freedom of speech we cannot compromise. It is clear in my mind which is the priority. On improving the future of the sport in our country, I leave it to you to choose:

Allowing the BCCI this avenue to suppress anything they want - thus holding some control over public opinion and their accountability
OR
Sacrificing TV coverage of domestic cricket: crucial to improving the selection process and generating interest/revenue in the sport

Of course this is speculation. The BCCI might not censor its own media outlets, and other production companies might be able to strike a deal where they can cover domestic cricket. But the dilemma poses everyone pondering this question a very interesting question.

This is precisely why I dont appreciate these lackwits (Goof troop: Siva, Javelin and Arun) commentating. Honestly, despite what ppl might think RE the Ganguly issue, I believe the ESPN-STAR team does a brilliant job and has a good team of QUALIFIED commentators.

Like Sahir, I also did not perceive any problems with BCCI having its own production house and TV channel. Great article by Atherton; kudos for opening my eyes.

[Sahir]

Dhruv,
Fair enough with regards to where our priorities ought to lie, but how do we rectify the situation short of government intervention?  The BCCI is a private body, according to a recent court decision, and essentially owns Indian cricket (although, I would argue that while it may be private, it is still a quasi-public institution, because of the nature of the function it serves and service it provides; incidentally, that is the legal reasoning that disallows private hospitals from turning away emergency patients without first stabilizing them because of patients' inability to pay).  How do we prevent the BCCI from having their own channel, broadcasting Indian cricket, which it basically has every right to do.  BTW, I agree that the type of commentators selected is very important.  The ESPN Star group certainly does not cower in the manner Srinath, Lal, and Sivaramakrishnan do.  You could not simply remove a commentator for legitimate opinions without at least facing a lot of unwanted criticism.  That is precisely why stronger characters of the likes of Shastri and Gavaskar are required in the box.  However, you cannot really blame Lal and Sivaramakrishnan too much for essentially knowing where there bread is buttered, for they are not modern stars that have cashed in on the modern day version of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory that is the river of cash flowing through Indian cricket.

[dhruvdeepak]

I have absolutely no confidence in the government intervening, simply because the current situation is politicized enough as it is. You have Pawars and Ranbir Mahendras leading the BCCI, you have politicians dying to have control of such a lavish sports body. To me, they just see what they can pocket themselves. This may be cynical, and Sharad Pawar might indeed clean up the BCCI (in one way or the other ) but the treasure trove that BCCI is, is such a strong motivation for anyone with the clout to go after, that I find it hard to believe in any pure ambitions of the parties involved.

You will know more about the nature of the legal status, but I believe there was a recent court ruling that the BCCI does have a public responsibility:

http://us.rediff.com/cricket/2005/may/12msg.htm

In essence, the Hon'ble Court ruled that Article 226 of the Constitution applied not just to state governments or statutory bodies, but equally to "a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature".

Thus, the Court suggested, the BCCI did fall under the purview of the courts of the land.

There is no way to stop the BCCI from having their own TV channel, except someone taking the matter to court. It will have to be proven that the BCCI's intentions are to misinform and hide information, rather than make profit. Something impossible, IMO.

This brings up the question of the auction (for production rights) proceedings. How are these rights granted? Apparently, the recent auction proceedings have been transparent (though I have seen no transcript or telecast). I find it difficult to figure out how a body like ESPN STAR is outbid so easily, and on a consistent basis. Are ESPN STAR not favored because of the strong characters on the commentary team (important because the commentators are the primary conveyors of what is happening, 8 hours a day...)?

(PS ATN CBN is showing the 1st ODI of India v Pak in the 2005 home series. Viroo scoring a 100, and looking MUCH F***ING THINNER. )

[Sahir]

Dhruv,
Thanks a lot for that link, as I was apparently mistaken.  It appears the ruling was completely in line with my quasi-public argument based on the functions of the body.  That is good, because it at least opens up an avenue of debate.  And you are right, the only way to stop the BCCI channel, short of a highly unlikely legislative intervention from Parliament, would be through an extremely hard-fought and drawn out legal process.  BTW, remember that match very well-- a brilliant attacking 100 by Veeru after we lost 2 wickets at the start for a couple of runs on the board, I think, only to have Veeru blast them everywhere and Dravid come up with what I regard as quite possibly his greatest ODI knock ever.  Not because of the rate of scoring (which was not special), but the situation and unbelievably oppressive heat and humidity.  I suspect Dravid might feel somewhat similarly as upon reaching his century, never had I seen Dravid so animated, with the possible exception of the epic Kolkata Test against the Aussies, but that was more along the lines of vindication than sheer pleasure at one's own performance, something Dravid does not as readily share with the public.

[dhruvdeepak]

Viroo's knock was struck by good fortune early on (couple of drops), before he absolutely annihilated the bowling. It was murderous stuff, he made 108 off 84 balls. And was looking so thin

Dravid, as was seen in the celebration, thoroughly enjoyed the knock. A measure of the oppressive conditions can be made by seeing the way Dravid got run out. Absolutely gave up trying to make his ground (which he could have made without too much effort) out of pure fatigue. I wouldnt rate this knock his greatest ODI inning (though up there) because he was so tired that he couldnt up the scoring, forcing the others to slog and play poor shots, getting out(Yuvi and Kaif). Those two wickets falling resulted in our scoring 280 and not 300+.

Anyway, it dont matter, because Mr. Saachin made his 2nd acquaintance with one Michelle Pfieffer.

Sachin just bowled Inzy with a beaut. The look of bewilderment on his face was amusing. AND he stayed at the crease, didnt leave. What would Beefy Botham say about that.

[Sahir]

Sachin just bowled Inzy with a beaut. The look of bewilderment on his face was amusing. AND he stayed at the crease, didnt leave. What would Beefy Botham say about that.

Haha-- what happened to the cocksure Botham in the last ODI?  Harbhajan was supposed to get punished-- oh no wait, that was only in the lala land of English fantasy where everything is seen with English visors on and the English are the greatest at everything they do.

[ranjit]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/244602.html

Atherton raises questions about freedom on air

Cricinfo staff

April 17, 2006

Michael Atherton, the former England captain who was part of commentary team for the recently concluded India-England series, has said that commentators had been had been asked to stay clear "sensitive" issues by the production company.

"The Indian cricket board treat Nimbus, the production company to whom they sold the television rights, like an in-house production company," Atherton wrote in his column in the Sunday Telegraph. "Nimbus are petrified of upsetting their 'employer', for fear of not getting any future rights, so any criticism of the BCCI is strictly frowned upon.

"Local commentators are already asked to wear the BCCI logo and are asked not to mention sensitive subjects like the spat between Greg Chappell and Sourav Ganguly, or controversial selection issues, no matter how germane they might be to the action. There has been talk that eventually the BCCI will have their own cricket channel. No doubt the viewers will get to see only what the BCCI want them to see and, with compliant commentators on board, they will hear only what the BCCI want them to hear."

Harish Thawani, promoter of Nimbus, denied these claims. "I am the producer of the series and I have not issued any instructions to this effect," he was quoted as saying in Hindustan Times. "In fact, the commentators were very critical of the amount of cricket being played and of the board overusing certain cricketers. There's no question of gagging anyone."

Niranjan Shah, the BCCI secretary, rejected the claims made by Atherton, referring to it as a misunderstanding. He said cricketers, once out of the field, have a platform to criticise people as openly as they can write in newspapers and express in other ways. He added that the board was willing to clarify all concerns the commentators may have.

Javagal Srinath, the former Indian fast bowler who was also one of the commentators during the series, had a different view. "I don't know what was told to them [the Sky team]," he told Cricinfo, "but we had no restraint as such."


*************

Although the BCCI deny it or claim that it was a misunderstanding, I seriously doubt that Atherton made this up.

[ranjit]

Here's Prem's take on it:
http://sightscreen.rediffiland.com/scripts/xanadu_diary_view.php?postId=1145285117

Speak no evil

Michael Atherton sets a frisky cat among the pigeons with his comment that Nimbus, producing domestic cricket on behalf of the BCCI, has asked commentators to shy away from 'dangerous' topics.

"The Indian cricket board treat Nimbus, the production company to whom they sold the television rights, like an in-house production company," Atherton wrote in his column in the Sunday Telegraph. "Nimbus are petrified of upsetting their 'employer', for fear of not getting any future rights, so any criticism of the BCCI is strictly frowned upon.

"Local commentators are already asked to wear the BCCI logo and are asked not to mention sensitive subjects like the spat between Greg Chappell and Sourav Ganguly, or controversial selection issues, no matter how germane they might be to the action. There has been talk that eventually the BCCI will have their own cricket channel. No doubt the viewers will get to see only what the BCCI want them to see and, with compliant commentators on board, they will hear only what the BCCI want them to hear."
Predictably, Nimbus in the person of Harish Thawani has denied any such gag; Javagal Srinath presumably on behalf of the commentators has denied any such edict -- so, chances are there is something to what Atherton is saying.

Not trying to be funny, no -- the whole thing has BCCI ham-handedness writ large over it. It is quite possible no one at Nimbus put in such criteria into a formal contract; it is very probable, though, that someone either with the BCCI or Nimbus gaffed their mouth with a diplomatic foot, by trying to tell commentators on the qt not to raise inconvenient subjects.

One thing is for sure -- if commentators, especially the local ones, fawn on the BCCI to such an obvious extent, we might be tempted to collectively puke. During recent weeks, we were treated to two Arun Lal specials (Lal seemingly having appointed himself the BCCI's resident trumpet0. One was an on-air interview with Sharad Pawar, in course of which the commentator went 'Excellent sir... very good sir... that is good news sir...' so many times, even Pawar had the grace to look embarassed.

The second came in course of the final ODI at Indore, when Lal had Jyotiraditya Scindia in the box, and judging by his long moments of silence, had a tough time finding enough full tosses for the MP State Cricket Association boss to hit for six.

Come on, BCCI -- if you want commentators to function as lackeys, the least you can do is put them in PR school for a bit, so that they are at the least not so blindingly obvious.

[toney]

While on the topic of calling Pawar and Scindia "sir", is it necessary to call Chappel and Frazer as "sir" too? This may vary from person to person. And considering our Indian traditions of not calling our teacher/any elder person by first name, it may even be the right choice. But I felt it was funny when Sreesanth mentioned Chappel sir and Frazer sir in his MoM interview.
Maybe, Chappel bhai might have been better. Or even Chappel chettan ?

[ruchir]

Maybe, Chappel bhai might have been better. Or even Chappel chettan ?

I guess, Chappell can be taught a little bit of Mumbaia bhasha, a la Munna bhai, and then let every one call him Chappell Bhai. This can be interesting:

Kaif: Chappell bhai, abhi apun kya karne ka? Run banta nahin hai. Baar-baar fail hone ka. Abhi apun kya karega?
Chappell: Are bhidu, fikar nahin karne ka, kya? Apun ka haath hai na tere oopar? Koi bhi zyada awaaj karega to apun wahin pe uska game bajaa dalega. Tere ko darne ka nahin, bas masti karne. Ja aish kar, bhidu. Patli gali se nikal le, khambba bachaa ke.....

[kubukde]

Controlling the media and limiting access to information is hardly a new phenomenon.  BCCI already wields tremendous power in world cricket -- poorer boards are kowtowing for series with India.  It is already clouded in more secrecy than the Iraq war, esp. about finances.  A BCCI Channel would be perfect:  lesser dissent and criticism, more secrecy and above all more power and money.  In return for for the attention and money of 100 millions, we can hope that the internal squabbles will continue in public.

[ruchir]

And then RD comes to GC....

RD: Yeee, GC. Yaar ye SG bahut teen-paanch kar raha hai. Ye sala, baar baar media mein kuch to bhi bolta hai. Kya karne ka?
GC: eeee, RD. Eee tu tension nahin lene ka, baap. Main hai na? Main abhi jaa ke usko thok dalta hai.

Then he calls Circuit (Dhoni)....

GC: AAyyyyyeee... ee chirkut Circuit. Abe jaldi aa na. Aur apna ghoda bhi saath mein le aa. Aaj ek mast game bajane ka. Pahle mast thokne ka, fir bajane ka. Tu bhi apne haath-pair ki varjish kar lena. Aur murga agar zyadaa choon-chaan kare to dena ek kokche mein rakh ke. Jasti mein baat nahin karne ka. Bas game bajane ka.... Samjhaa??