|
July 31, 1997
NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
DEAR REDIFF
|
The Cricket Interview/Sunil Dev
"No current player is involved in betting"
Anybody who is connected, in any way at all, with cricket apparently feels the need, these days, to take off on the subject of betting and bribery in Indian cricket.
Sunil Dev, secretary of the Delhi District Cricket Association and manager of the Indian side that toured South Africa under Mohammad Azharuddin in 1993, jumped on the bandwagon the other day when he told a news agency that in his view, betting and match fixing have increasingly become endemic to Indian cricket.
Interestingly, in the article carried by Outlook magazine a month ago, which first front-paged the allegations and which, eventually, led to the setting up of the Y V Chandrachud committee of inquiry, Sunil Dev was quoted as saying that at least four players on that South African tour played as if their minds were on things other than cricket, and that these players did not have the interests of the team at heart, and further that he had mentioned this in his end of tour report to the BCCI.
All of which prompted Syed Firdaus Ashraf to meet Sunil Dev for an indepth interview. Excerpts:
You have been quoted as saying that on the India tour of South Africa in 1993, four Indian players did not have the interests of the team at heart. Would you care to elaborate?
I have been totally misquoted. I have never said that four players did not play well on that tour, or anything remotely like that, either to the media or in my tour report to the BCCI.
What then did you say in your report?
I said that four players had been changed in the middle of the tour, and that this was not a good thing. I also said that changing captains often is not good. I added in my report that if and when a captain retires, he should retire not just from the captaincy, but from the game itself, because I don't think it is good for a former captain to continue to be a member of the side, it puts pressure on his successor. It is like two generals running an army, or two managing directors running a company. Nowhere in my report have I said that the boys did not play with their hearts. In fact, I have clearly mentioned that the boys were very well behaved, both on and off the field. I also said that they are technically very strong, that they are one of the finest sides, that they only lacked in stamina and physical fitness.
From your experience as cricket manager and administrator, do you believe that betting and match fixing goes on in Indian cricket?
I am the only person at the official level who has said that it exists, though behind closed doors, all the BCCI officials do speak about it. Out in the open, though, no one mentions it -- perhaps they believe it is wrong to hurt the hopes and sentiments of millions of cricket fans -- more so because such statements are very very difficult to prove.
As far as the question of whether fixing goes on, yes, it does. True, it is not in the hands of a batsman to score 100 runs and win a game -- but a player can deliberately get a low score. Imran Khan once said, "You can immediately make out when a batsman has played a poor shot deliberately", and he is right. It is very obvious to anyone who knows the game.
If that is a 'yes', then can you name some of the players involved?
No, I cannot. Let somebody stand by me and promise to probe it fully and completely, then I can name names.
But isn't the Chandrachud committee probing that very issue right now?
What committee? Chandrachud himself says, "I cannot do anything as nobody is saying anything to me!". What is the use of a committee like that?
But isn't this a strange situation, where people like Manoj Prabhakar and you make allegations, but refuse to name names? If there is no point in naming names, then what is the point in making the allegations in the first place?
The allegations arise because one feels that some players are taking millions of fans for a ride. Also from the fear that at this rate, cricket will become like horse-racing. Because everyone knows races are fixed, a lot of people have now stopped going to the races, and the same thing could happen in cricket as well. People sit all night, watching a match, with mixed emotions -- as they begin realising that games are fixed, they will stop doing this. And it is an awareness of this danger that makes people like us speak out, hoping that the game may get cleaned up as a result.
But if that is your intention, then why not just name names, so that the public knows who to distrust and, ultimately, the players concerned can be punished?
No, even if I give names, what is the use? I know that no player will be penalised. Manoj Prabhakar, too, knows that. The thing is, even BCCI officials are aware of what is going on, but are not coming out in the open. And I know that by saying this, I will have annoyed some of my friends in the Board.
Okay, if you had control of the game in India, how would you go about cleaning it up?
I would insist on putting the emphasis on physical fitness, on building stamina and strength. I would also hire a good coach and appoint him for a full five year term. I would also bring in stability. Pick the best possible players, all young and talented, and let them, under Sachin Tendulkar, lose for a year or two if needed while they acquire the necessary experience and maturity.
What you are saying is that frequent changes of captain is not good, is that right?
Obviously. Look, during the Independence Cup, on the day of the final, they paraded some 24 former India captains in Calcutta. In other words, we've had 24, 25 captains in 50 years. Look at the top nations -- West Indies, Australia, whatever. In that same period, they would have had six, seven captains at best. Australia is a perfect example -- Allan Border came in as captain when he was very young, and was allowed to grow, and the team grew with him and became world beaters. Look at Mark Taylor -- zero after zero in every match this year, and yet he is not being thrown out. To my mind, constant changes in captaincy is not good for the side.
How about the selection process? Kapil Dev, for instance, has come out in favour of a three member committee...
Yes, Kapil did make that suggestion -- rather harshly, I thought, but I do agree that the present composition should be scrapped and a three man committee put in place.
How about the suggestion that only players with experience at the Test level should become selectors?
I don't agree with that. Players with good first class experience are equally capable of doing a good job -- what matters is integrity. Look at Ashok Mankad, he is one of the best readers of the game I have seen in my time. Take Raman Lamba, for instance, or Rajendra Goel -- they may not have played many Tests, but can you say that they will be bad as selectors?
Okay, to go back to the question of betting and bribery -- why is it such allegations come up only when the team is on a losing streak?
True, it is only when we lose that such charges come up. Maybe because we Indians are very emotional about our cricket, people tend to try and find reasons for our defeat. I feel that betting and such happen, but only in rare instances, and that too, only very few players are involved.
You say very few players are involved. Of them, how many are playing today?
I can say in all honesty that no current player is involved in betting.
|
