Cricket Commentary/Prem Panicker

Food for tort

For a little over a week, I've been brooding about the latest "revelations" on the betting and bribery front, as in Outlook magazine. And to be very frank, the bad taste I found in my mouth when I first read that piece just doesn't go away.

The media admittedly has a hugely important part to play in the health of any nation - its role when functioning at its best being both diagnostic and prescriptive. One thing it is not, however, is destructive -- and it is in this last category that the Outlook interview with Rashid Latif falls into, at least in my mind.

What are my objections to that piece? Simply this -- that it takes calculating advantage of the mood of the times to be sensationalistic without being, at the same time, responsible. It seeks to convey a particular impression, without however presenting even the teensiest bit of evidence to back it up. Worse, it levels an allegation -- a very serious one, for to betray your country for money is, when reduced to its essence, nothing short of treason -- by innuendo, by subliminal suggestion. Taking care at the same time to say nothing for which it can be held accountable later.

Look at the technique used. On the cover, a blurb proclaims that Rashid Latif has "confirmed match-fixing allegations". Immediately, the reader is mentally primed to accept that the debate is finally over, that the article he is about to read contains proof positive that matchfixing is the norm in Indian cricket.

So you flip to the page concerned, and find a dramatic headline: "Azhar, Jaddu used to call me..."

And what does that mean for the reader? An immediate reaction of oh hell, so it is Azhar and Jadeja who are the culprits after all.

The fact that the story, after all, did not have one single point to back up the allegation is now too well known to merit mention. The fact that even the little that there was in the story has since been vehemently denied by Rashid Latif himself is also common knowledge.

So where does this leave us? Speaking for myself, the entire episode reminds me of a statement once made by Learned Hand, when he was a justice of the United States Supreme Court: "The right to free speech does not include the right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre!"

Very true. And to my mind, neither does the freedom of the media carry with it the right to make, via innuendo and auto-suggestion, unsubstantiated allegations that only tend to further vitiate the atmosphere in the theatre of the absurd that is Indian cricket today.

Outlook has claimed that the whole Rashid Latif interview is on tape. I had hoped, after Latif's immediate denial, that the magazine would respond by publishing the transcript. It has not -- at least, not in its latest issue. It cannot afford not to, in its next issue - for two things are at stake here. One is the credibility of the magazine, and the media in general. And the other is the game of cricket -- a game that has given so much joy to so many over the years, and which does not deserve to be tried by the media and, in absentia, pronounced guilty of no one quite knows what charge.

I read it, but I still don't quite believe it.

'It', of course, being a "frank" chat Indian coach Madan Lal has had, in the aftermath of the side's defeat by Sri Lanka, in the final of the Asia Cup, with Vijay Lokpally of The Hindu.

I mean, I know Madan Lal makes a fetish of his frankness -- but what I just read ranks, in my lexicon, more as an instance of opening his mouth and putting his foot right in it. While the Indian coach has given his personal view on each member of the squad, I will quote just a few of his gems to illustrate my point:

"Ajay Jadeja: He should make up his mind whether he is playing as a batsman or as a bowler. He has to perform either way to justify his place in the side... You can't do well in one match and fail in the next five..."

"Robin Singh... is cricketer who tries hard, but can't really classify him as an all rounder of international level..."

"Saba Karim... I don't think he can pull off a match with his batting at this level, and he is an average wicketkeeper..."

"Anil Kumble... frankly I was not happy with his bowling... he must realise that his strength is line and length and not turn..."

"Nilesh Kulkarni... too early to judge... again, I am not sure if he can run through the opposition"

And finally, there is this little gem: "Something has to be done. I know that we are not winning, but tell me what can I do alone?"

Earlier, during the coaching camp in Bangalore prior to the Asia Cup, I asked Madan Lal whether, in his opinion, he felt that the team needed a motivator, a psychoanalyst who could work on the players, strengthen their self belief, help them perform to par and beyond. "No!" came the crisp answer. "That is what I am there for!"

Well, frankly, if the above is any indication of Madan Lal's method of motivating his squad, then I am none too surprised that the side is faring as poorly as it is. I am not, at this point, quarrelling with the coach's assessment of the individual players -- that is his viewpoint, and he is as entitled to it as the next man. But did he, for one minute, consider the implications of letting the players read these comments in the pages of the media? Just how does say a Robin Singh -- and mind you, he is still a member of the Indian side for the upcoming Test series -- get motivated by the knowledge that his coach thinks he can't cut it at the highest level?

In his column on Wednesday arguing the need for a foreign coach, my fellow columnist Harsha Bhogle touched in passing on this interview and said that Madan Lal's tone sounded on par with that of a jail warden. True. Either that, or a disgruntled school headmaster scribbling adverse comments in the report books of his wards. And if these remarks deserve the George Washington Award for disastrous frankness, they certainly don't jell with the role of motivator that Lal feels himself uniquely fitted to play.

There is an old rule of man-management that maybe the Indian coach needs to learn: when you praise someone, do it in public; when you need to censure, do it in private.

Brawling in public with Navjot Singh Sidhu, commenting adversely about the players whose mental fitness he is in charge of, and capping it all off with a comment that "something has to be done, I know we are not winning but what can I do?" isn't exactly calculated to infuse confidence in either the players, or indeed the fans.

I mean, if the members of the team were all top class performers who could bat, bowl and field better than all other sides in the game, then why the heck would we need a Madan Lal anyway? A coach is meant to do two things -- one is chalk out strategy and, frankly, there has been precious little sign of that thus far. For instance, whose brilliant idea was it to go up against the best one day batting lineup in the business with just three regular bowlers anyway? The other job of coach is to motivate, to lift the morale of players, to help them lift their game to heights even they did not know they could reach - and you don't do that by casually telling a passing reporter that so sorry, but Mr X is not a player of international calibre.

What has all this achieved? Simple - a situation where the players neither trust, nor like, their coach. Or, to borrow a leaf from Madan Lal's own book of frankness, respect him.

One recent instance suffices to underline the point that Madan Lal, as coach of this Indian side, is less than ideal. Recently, one of the younger members of the Indian squad was idly flipping through a copy of a sports magazine when he chanced to spot an article about his coach. The player skimmed through the piece, till his eye was taken by the career stats appended at the end. A quick perusal, and he burst out: "Bloody hell, I have a better bowling average in international cricket than Madan Lal has!"

'Nuff said?

Tailpiece: Minutes after writing the above, comes word that BCCI secretary J Y Lele is rushing to Colombo to meet the captain, coach and members of the Indian team, as also the Sri Lankan cricket board.

The ostensible reason is that the BCCI is yet to receive a copy of the playing conditions from its Lankan counterpart, though the first Test begins on Saturday. However, the norms governing international tours are such that the playing conditions are submitted along with the itinerary. And in the unlikely event that there are any last minute changes, extrapolations or additions to the rules governing play, the match referee discusses them with the rival captains, coaches and umpires and gets everybody's approval.

He most certainly does not have the secretary of the cricket board of the touring side fly down 24 hours before start of play to sound him out - which means that Lele's stated reason for the trip just does not wash.

Unofficially, meanwhile, it is understood that the players are upset with coach Madan Lal for the adverse comments made by the latter in a recent interview. Asked specifically whether this was so, Lele did not confirm it.

Then again, he did not deny it, either.