NEWS
COLUMNS
INTERVIEWS
SCHEDULES

The Rediff Interview/ Asif Iqbal

'Cricketers are professionals and they have to learn to play on any surface that is given to them'

PART I:
'At the moment the Pakistan cricket selection board needs to be looked into'

So you think the Indians have been unfair in complaining about their loss?

Yes, I think the Indians are being very unfair in complaining that the team lost in Australia. They were beaten by a better side. This is one thing which the sub-continent has to learn; so also the English media and the English people. They have to learn to say that if their team is losing, it is not because they are very bad; it is because the others are very good. So instead of saying that we are very bad, the credit should be given to the other team.

We have no practice of facing the ball coming up above the waist...

We'll, I will tell you, it is very simple. If they are going on a tour to Australia, before they go on a tour -- say about 3-4 weeks -- then the type of wickets they are going to play on, which ever country they are going to, if they are going to England - English type of wickets; if they are going to Australia - Australian type of wickets; if they are going to South Africa - South African type of wickets... those wickets should be prepared, where they can have a 3 or 4 weeks' rigorous training camp, on which they practice to get accustomed to those wickets.

You firmly believe that it is the only way to get accustomed to bouncy tracks?

Yes, I do believe that. Because I don't subscribe that when you go to Australia, every Indian wicket has to be like the one in Australia, because you are going to play in Australia. No, every country has its own climatic conditions and it's a very normal thing. Playing in India against spinners is as good a novelty as playing against McGrath in Australia.

So do you think that there should be dusty wickets?

Why not? I mean people want to watch a duel between bat and ball. It doesn't have to be between a fast bowler and a batsman; it could be between a spinner versus a batsman.

At the expense of not having sporting Test wickets?

I think cricket is played as a sport, and I think only the industry part of it is only as far as the marketing is concerned. Cricketers are professionals and they have to learn to play on any surface that is given to them. So when the Indian team goes overseas, or the Pakistan team goes overseas, they have to learn to cope with those conditions. And likewise, when the other countries come to the subcontinent they have to learn to cope with the conditions. Your team has to be good enough to go overseas and beat them.

So how do the sub-continental teams come up there?

Both the countries have won the World Cup. So they are good enough and they didn't win the World Cup in their own countries. Nobody writes about it. Pakistan won the World Cup in Australia and India won the World Cup in England. Nobody mentioned that. Why not? Just remind the people. The other countries have just lost to Australia and the world has come to an end as far as the media is concerned or as far as a certain section of the media and the people are concerned. But just remind them that these are the teams that won them the World Cup in foreign countries. What happened then?

Why do you say that? You said earlier that cricket is now an industry?

It is; the marketing side of it. Because of television, sponsors. Everything is sellable now. From grass, where you put a logo, to the cricket clothing, to the stumps; everywhere.

Is it good for the game?

Yes, I am aware. Why not? I think the players should be rewarded. If they are not being rewarded it is unfair. And I think they are being rewarded. They deserve it. It is because of them that these people have got the opportunity to market their name.

So how much importance do you give to the advanced technology in cricket?

Very much. I think players' livelihoods are dependent on certain decisions that are made. More than that, public is paying money to watch. If the players make a mistake, they get out; but if the umpires make a mistake, it's an unfair dismissal. So if you can get the assistance of the third umpire I think it should be great. But at the same time one should not forget the element of human error. If that is totally taken away by both the umpires, I wouldn't go that far.

What are your views of home umpires being biased? Do you subscribe to that?

Yes I do. I think they are biased not because they are cheats. I would never use the word for a home umpire because I think that element of doubt occurs; that tension in the game, that extra sort of emotional feeling that occurs. But I think all umpires are neutral. Whether we have a third country umpire or not. The only reason for having a third country umpire is because the element of doubt of the umpires being biased or not is taken away. So it helps the visiting team when they play an overseas tour. And I do think that there should be both. Both the umpires should be overseas umpires; third countries umpires.

Did you see those Sachin's three or four dismissals which went wrong?

Unfortunately for Sachin, he is such an important member of the Indian team, the Indian batting line-up. For whatever reason, he got a bad decision.

But some of the decisions weren't even close. The lbw decision!

If were to be given a choice to say that this was the closest one, I think that was a close one that went against him, because he was ducking to a bouncer. Then, I am talking about the decision after seeing so many replays. The umpires don't get those many replays. It is unfortunate that Sachin got most of the bad decisions. The unfortunate part of it is if these decisions take place in the subcontinent then the umpires are biased and cheats.

Yes, the subcontinent got the label of being cheats. If it happens in Australia, New Zealand, West Indies and even England or South Africa, they are human errors. So I want that equation to be equal for every one, for all the umpires, whether they are from the subcontinent or whether they are from any other country that I have mentioned; they are all human errors.

You can't say that the subcontinent ones are more biased. Specially now with television coverage from all over the world, people have seen for themselves that when our team goes overseas the biased fact is there as compared to the bias in our own country.

You have been a very progressive thinker of the game. If there is one change you want in cricket what would it be?

One change I would like to see in the game is the restriction of fielders in the first 15 overs. I would like to see that out of 50 overs, the 15 overs should be there but it should be divided. In the first 15 overs, there should be restrictions of 5 overs, from 15-30 another 5 overs, and from 30-50 another 5 overs. So it is more thinking for the captain and batsman, and all the bowlers may need to bowl under these restrictions; also the captain would have to think as when to use his best bowlers; the batting side can hope that their best batsman gets the best advantage. That's one thing I would like to see in limited-overs cricket. In Test cricket I don't know. I think it's good. I wouldn't like any changes except the fast bowlers being penalized, especially with all the headgear that they (batsmen) have got and then regarding the chest guard. I think that restriction is not fair.

Do you think the ICC should be involved in scheduling the matches?

Absolutely, I think all the one-day tournaments should be programmed by the ICC, which gives every country a fixed number of one-dayers, a fixed number of Test matches. I think the question is already answered because the ICC has made such a programme for the next ten years.

Why is match-fixing so profound in the subcontinent?

I don't think it is in the subcontinent, because most of the matches that they talk about being fixed happened overseas, not in India and Pakistan. I think it is more overseas than in India and Pakistan. I think the countries involved that they talk about are India and Pakistan. Which again, like I talked about the umpiring earlier on. So I think television plays a major role again in this. But don't forget, there is the difference between betting and match-fixing.

Betting is legal everywhere else in the world. They have got it at Lord's; in Australia and other grounds in England they have got betting shops, which is normal. And I think because it is illegal in our part of the world is why it is talked more about. So instead of betting they talk about match-fixing.

So you believe betting is there?

I think betting has always been there. I remember in 1956, when the West Indies came over here, they had talked about one of the great all-rounders of the world. They said that he bagged himself and his team to win the game. And he did and there is nothing wrong with that.

Have you ever betted?

In cricket? I would say that I would bet on a game knowing my cricketing expertise, thinking in my opinion that would happen and what would not happen. But I wouldn't like to put my share on a cricket match, and bet on the discreet.

And what about match-fixing? Have you know of anything?

I think I have heard a lot about it from quite a few people but nobody has come out and given a substantial evidence.

PART I:

Interviews