Nobody killed Sourav Ganguly!

By H Natarajan

Sourav Ganguly could be the first victim of the corporate culture that is invading Indian cricket through the Indian Premier League (IPL). When the cold and calculating czars of the corporate world are flexing their financial muscle, they don’t allow sentiments and emotions to come into the equation.

Wipro chairman Azim Premji gave the sack to two of his loyal and long-standing allies recently. They did not fit into scheme of his things and they had to go. It’s the same dispassionate corporate logic that one witnessed at the IPL4 auction where none of the ten teams made any attempt to buy Ganguly.

The reasons were clear in the minds of the brains trust of the teams, even as the world outside speculate the reasons till date. The numbers guru had crunched the figures, the itinerants had a microscopic look at the ICC cricket calendar, the legal team vetted the players’ contracts and the cricketing masters had their say on the players’ ability, form and fitness to last the next three years. Nothing was left to chance, no room for ambiguity.

Certainly there was no place for sentiments like son of the soil. Rahul Dravid, Bangaluru’s home-bred hero, was not wanted by Royal Challengers, whose Chief Mentor - sitting next to Vijay Mallya at the auction table - was Dravid’s stable mate Anil Kumble. VVS Laxman, Indian cricket’s crisis management expert and Hyderabad once iconic player, also did not fit into the scheme of Deccan Chargers and had to leave.

But what shook Indian cricket at its very roots was impassive and stony ignore of Ganguly. The media went into an overdrive, Ganguly fans went on the offensive to stage rallies, protests, burn effigies. Between the end of the auction and February 4, Indian cricket witnessed a “Hope opera” - hope that the Prince of Kolkata would make a royal back door entrance. But the “Hope Opera” ended in a “Reality show” on February 4, when the corporate czars sent Ganguly on the mat with a flurry of punches. From the Ambanis in the West, to Mallya in the South to Manoj Badale in the North, the poison arrows flew thick and fast at Ganguly.

The man - venerated as Bhismapitama by many of India current superstars for his care and mentoring during their infancy in international cricket - lay mortally wounded in a bed of arrows. It was sad to see the “God of the off-side” dumped by the wayside.

There is a school of thought that Australian cricket has adopted the same ruthless approach as the IPL team owners. Not quite, in my opinion. While it’s true that some of the biggest cricketing legends Down Under left international cricket because the decision was taken by the selectors, it’s also true that the players were told before hand and given the chance to make a dignified exit.

The legends retired amid much pomp, celebrated by the nation, chaired by the team mates, feted by the media and the fans. Those were befittingly a hero’s farewell. In sharp contrast, it was very sad to see Ganguly treated like a pariah – unwanted by all ten team in what seemed like a conspiracy of silence – and then blocked by three teams when one team had a rethink.

It was sad to see a great champion, a man who changed the face of Indian cricket with his spunk, a man who changed India’s cricket’s attitude of showing the other cheek… Gandhigiri to Dadagiri was a paradigm shift. To see such a hero pink-slipped in an ignominious manner is rather sad - denied the one last hurrah that he so badly wanted.

The team owners would say that Ganguly was fair game once he was in the auction ring. Even if one accepts that none of the team thought he was good enough to be among India’s top 70 players, what difference it made to them if another team was willing to accommodate him after a rethink? Some of the team owners became Pontiffs of morality to say that it’s not fair to twist the rule! I think THAT would have hurt Ganguly more than the initial ignore. This was rubbing salt in his wounds.“This is not cricket at all. I am surprised that things can go down to a level that a cricketer cannot play in his own country for no fault of his…I was very disappointed the franchises stalled the repurchase. The rules of the IPL have been changed in the past. Every rule in sport should give an opportunity to play, not keep them out - whether it's Sourav Ganguly today or some other player sometime," a hurt Ganguly reacted.

Ganguly is not the kind of man who will forgive or forget things easily. The subtle humiliation first and then the more brazen later will have its repercussion – eventually. I have no doubt in my mind that Ganguly will reincarnate as an influential cricket administrator, even as the President of the BCCI some day. That is when the some of the team owners will feel the heat.I’m certain many men who mattered from various teams would have walked up to Ganguly – or will do so in future – to tell him that they fought for his inclusion in their team and that the decision not to bid for him was taken by someone else. Yes, nobody killed Sourav Ganguly!

The Royal Bengal tiger has been killed and nobody wants to think he is a poacher. Well, saving the Tiger is nothing more than a slogan in our country!

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of www.CricketCountry.com)

If Test cricket dies, it will be murder and an inside job

By H Natarajan

The advent of one-day cricket changed the face of cricket. The change, though, was evolutionary – be it the style of play, the strategy and approach of the captains or even the format itself. The abridged version has gone through further condensation to emerge as. This time around the resultant changes are more revolutionary, keeping with the frenetic pace of the modern world.

A generation bygone quit overs-limit game to prolong their Test career. The reason commonly heard then was that limited-over game is a young man’s game which places uncompromising demands on the body. In other words, when the wear and tear from the years of toil began to take its toll, they made a graceful exit from ODIs to concentrate in the relatively less-taxing conventional form of cricket.

Players often moaned that more than the actual playing it was the frequent travelling and flights at unearthly hours after a day-nighter which was killing. There was no time for rest and recuperation. In sharp contrast, a player can be assured of staying put at least for a week in one place while playing a Test match. And of the five days of a Test, often he can expect about two days relaxing in the pavilion.

But the birth of T20 and specifically the advent of the money-spinning Indian Premier League (IPL) have triggered a radical change in the thought process of the players. In what is clearly an emerging pattern, players today are willing to bid adieu to Test cricket to prolong their careers in the compact version of cricket.

Let’s see some of the recent examples. Sanath Jayasuriya last played a Test in December 2007, but he played ODIs for two more years and, in fact, was in the provisional Sri Lankan squad for the 2011 World Cup probables alongside another veteran in Chaminda Vaas. The left-arm medium-pacer’s final Test was in July 2007, but he went on to play ODI for over a year. The Sri Lankan provisional list also included a third veteran in Muttiah Muralitharan, now retired from Test cricket. But unlike Jayasuriya and Vaas, Murali has been given a chance for a final hurrah in the World Cup.

In all my years in cricket, I never came across a single player who valued overs-limit cricket more than Test cricket. That’s why I was appalled to hear Chris Gayle say in 2009 that he will “not be so sad” if Test cricket died! Sacrilegious!

Gayle’s shockingly audacious statement came after arriving in England just two days before a Test. He was the captain of the West Indies team, but he was busy playing the IPL!

Before 2009 ended, England’s Andrew Flintoff, New Zealand’s Jacob Oram and Shane Bond all cited injury reasons to quit Test cricket while making themselves available for the T20s and ODIs. The disturbing trend is having a domino effect. Last year, Brett Lee quit Test cricket to extend his overs-limit career. Then Shahid Afridi said he was not interested in playing Test cricket saying that “my temperament is not good enough for Test cricket” - enlightenment after 12 years in Test cricket! Before the recent Ashes series ended, Paul Collingwood joined those saying bye-bye to Tests and now comes the news that Lasith Malinga (pix above) is apparently contemplating to do the same. Malinga has been in international cricket for just over six years and is only 27 years old.

I would not be surprised if more professional cricketers make such decisions to keep themselves fit and fresh for the more lucrative IPL. That’s definitely not good news for Test cricket.

The last time Test cricket faced serious threat was when Kerry Packer flexed his financial muscle to lure the crème de la crème of international cricket. But the difference between then and now is that, the establishment then waged a fierce battle to protect the future of Test cricket. But what makes the present danger most worrisome is that the epicentre of the tremors is found inside the establishment. Unless some serious rethinking is done by the high priests of the game, the numbers forsaking Tests for the greener pastures of T20 could get alarmingly high. And if Test cricket eventually dies, it will be an inside job.

Once the ageing heroes like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis, to name a few, mothball their cricketing whites, the romance of Test cricket could fade as a newer generation weaned on T20 razzmatazz hold sway.

Gayle, Kieron Pollard and Dwayne Bravo rejected contracts offered by the West Indies Cricket Board to be free to play domestic Twenty20 competitions all over, including the IPL.

As professionals, the players cannot be blamed for securing their future. But as the custodians of the game, I would like to see the administrators take steps to secure the real game of Test cricket. Skills cannot be honed in the corruption of T20 and one-day cricket; it has to in the longer version. If the basics are flawed, then it will have an adverse affect on the abridged version as well.

I would like to believe that if India wins the 2011 World Cup, Sachin Tendulkar would retire from ODIs to channelize his energies on Test cricket. That will send the right message to those who play overs-limit internationals over Test cricket.

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of http://www.cricketcountry.com/ where the above column appeared)