Bowled all ends up
Bowled all ends up
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Who writes edits on sports generally, and cricket edits in particular? The usual suspects or the sports editor? I have never been able to find out, but I suspect it is both because the edits are usually either ignorant (the usual suspects) or full of bias (sports editors).
Cricket, of course, can be very exciting, but cricket politics as well? Last week saw the cricket equivalent of shoot out at OK corral end with the defeat of the local bully, Jagmohan Dalmiya, at the hands of the new sheriff, Sharad Pawar. And the editorials poured forth.
That, in a sense, is how the Hindu saw it, anyway. It said Pawar`s victory had "ushered in a liberating change." Liberating from what, I wondered. But it did not specify. It was fulsome in its praise for the victor. "After becoming President, the experienced politician who has an impressive track record of promoting kabbadi, wrestling, kho-kho, and cricket in western India reiterated the need to remodel the BCCI`s constitution, strengthen the Board`s foundation, and bring transparency to its working." Well, we will see won`t we?
The Telegraph chose to kick the man who was down, rather than cosy up to the new boss. "Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya was hoisted by his own petard." Wrong English - it is hoist on his own petard. It went on, "Mr Dalmiya knew no loyalties except the perpetuation of his own power…Such a person commands no respect… he stonewalled… the scandal regarding players accused of betting and match fixing… enriched the BCCI but not in cricketing terms." Wow! Double wow!!
Happily it did not spare Mr Pawar, who it said had "no real stakes in cricket. The BCCI presidentship is only an extension of his ego." Nice, very nice.
The Indian Express said, in effect, that cricket was run on the whims and fancies of the BCCI`s bosses. "The review committee constituted two months ago to appraise Chappell, is to be disbanded. But, even in its correctness, it gives proof of how dependent cricket`s key decisions can be on the whims and loyalties of the men who administer it."
It called the BCCI an "empire of patronage" and said "the board stands completely discredited." Very true but surely a little unfair, all things considered?
The Hindustan Times asked the most relevant question: "what awaits Indian cricket?" It reminded readers that under Mr Dalmiya, "the game has seen its epicentre shift from the wood-panelled rooms of the Marlybone Cricket Club Lord`s to the Indian subcontinent." No mean achievement that, if you ask me. But, it said, there was a "certain lack of transparency" in one of the world`s richest sporting bodies. How true.
The Pioneer wrote a day too early and sounded utterly banal. The Business Standard, which probably had nothing else to write about that day, also forayed into an area it normally steers clear of. "The hard truth is that the Articles of Association of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (or BCCI) are such as to make it extremely difficult to change. These ensure a closed-shop style and, once elected, there is hardly any incentive for the new incumbent to dilute his powers, or to introduce greater transparency. This is what lies at the heart of the matter." This too is true.
It also pointed out that it was symptomatic that public attention was focused on commercial things like sponsorships, new stadia and TV rights. But, it said, "At the end of the day, only one thing matters: that the Indian team wins more matches than it loses, and that it positions itself well for a clear shot at winning the World Cup 15 months from now."
Yes, indeed, quite so, absolutely.
contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com
Subscribe To The Newsletter