Performance, Players and Pay

[Guest HariSampath]

This is an issue that I had been passionately promoting for discussion among various groups of cricket fans, cricket journalists, former cricketers and administrators, for 5-6 years. My strong position had consistently been NO GRADED CONTRACTS During the Indian tour of England in the summer of 2002, the ICC contracts issue was threatening to snowball, with some of the senior Indian cricketers refusing to sign. I was in Chicago at that time, and I had several telephonic discussions with some former Indian cricketers, journalists ,administrators, and also Mr Jagmohan Dalmia for several days, with the threat of players boycott looming, and made some small inputs towards resolving the problem ( which didn't work). Eventually the problems were sorted out, but the experience gave me many insights into how the minds of players/former players worked , and as a fan I was far from happy with this. I wrote an article for the online sports desk of a publishing house after India lost to England at Lord's 2002 , dealing with the above issue, and the very same issues surfaced again after the World cup debacle of March 2007. Please take the time to read the piece that follows and give your opinions on the issue as well as the cricketing aspects from our perspective: that is as Indian cricket fans. Thank you, I appreciate it Hari Sampath

[Guest HariSampath]

Sunday, March 25, 2007 Lord's 2002; A matter of (W)right ? Although this article was written by me 5 years back, there are some relevant points to be noted in view of the current Indian debacle in the World cup. More specifically, it is pertinent to note what coaches say after disastrous games, and this is more relevant now in view of Greg Chappell not accepting that he is accountable to 1 billion Indians. ************************************************************ A matter of (W)right ? by Hari Sampath The approach of the Indian XI in the Lord's test is in stark contrast to the England team in terms of strategy and focused priorities. The most atrocious comment I have heard in the past couple of days is that of the Indian coach John Wright saying that more runs were expected from tail enders, after the top batsmen in the side fell tamely to a mediocre English attack on a placid wicket. Wright had said the same thing in the West Indies when Indian batting performed pathetically to lose the series. I fail to understand the thinking of the coach. It is really a simple matter, and leaves no room for confusion. Batsmen are selected to score hundreds, and bowlers are selected to take 5 wkts and bowl teams out. Whatever else these specialists do is a bonus, and not what you expect as a matter of right (Wright?). Sachin getting 3 wkts on an odd occasion or Agarkar getting a hundred are not things you count on to win a Test match or for that matter , lack of the above incidents happening is hardly the principal reason cited for defeat. This is absurdity in midseason form. Sachin has to get hundreds that propel India a long way towards victory, so do Dravid and Ganguly. When India is reeling at, say, 30-3 facing 300 to avoid a follow on, these world class specialists have to get 150 notout and do the job. When India needs 350 to win on the last day, and are 20-2, some top class batsman has to put his hands up, and say “I shall get 120, and we will win , just support me". If India is defending a last innings target of 180 runs , Zaheer Khan, Nehra or Harbhajan should come forward to say " count on me, I will get a fiver.... we bowl them out and win today". If these things do not happen, then the team management should be pointing the finger at the specialists, and ask tough questions publicly... not coverup for the failures of those expected to deliver the goods, by picking on those not expected to do so, and divert the focus. Here is where we need to take a leaf out of England's approach, I remember a test match in 1981 when the Off Spinner Geoff Miller got 98 in a test match but was dropped for the next game. Reason? He didn't bowl well enough to be selected as a bowler, and the 98 didn't mean a thing, as there were batsmen expected to do that job! Take the case of The Waugh brothers being dropped. Reputations don't count in a game. Runs and wickets do. Last season's form or a decade of records is no escape from today's crunch situation. All batsmen walk in with the scoreboard reading 0 not out, and even bowlers like Muralitharan with hundreds of wickets will be clobbered if they bowl badly. Cricket is a great leveler and an unforgiving game, last game's 100 or 5 wickets is not counted in the scoresheet for today's match. What ails the Indian Cricketer? Simple. An overwhelming inner attitude that dictates some minimum statistical performance individually to stay in the side for the season. This goal itself defines and decides what the collective performance of the team is going to be. See the Lord's test and the statistics. Dravid gets a couple of 40s and 50s, so do Laxman, Sehwag et al. Zaheer, Kumble and Nehra pitch in with a couple of wickets. All said and done, nothing wrong individually and you cannot drop a player after these satisfactory performances. Result? A crushing defeat against a mediocre side on a placid wicket. Maybe I shouldn't say mediocre, it is wholly unfair to England, they were a great side. A collection of ordinary individuals, with no tag of the "World's best batsman or bowler", and no records behind them, but collectively producing the champion team performance when it counts. Well deserved winners, as it should be. Cricket has a funny way of really rewarding team effort, and mocking at individual statistical glory. The 1983 Prudential cup finals is a telling example of this great axiom. A cricketer should be made to understand before the Toss that he needs to make a difference towards his side winning the game, not merely make some contribution to be barely considered for selection in the next game based on performances of the past few years. Raise the bar, raise the expectations and standards. Tell Kumble that even if he has got 200 wkts, he cannot assume that it is insurance for a place in the side by merely taking 2 wkts today. Tell Ganguly and Tendulkar that thousands of runs and dozens of 100s of the past don't make the slightest difference if they fail in succession and India loses today. Let the Tendulkars and Gangulys and Kumbles be ever aware that they need to score match winning hundreds and turn in decisive 5 wkt hauls and win games. This is a job requirement. The failures that are part and parcel of the game, the bad form etc, are perfectly understandable. But the key is “an in form Kaif with no test 100s, is a better bet than an out of form Sachin with 30 hundreds". The moment the Tendulkars, Gangulys, Dravids and Kumbles realize this, they will raise their own standards and deliver for the team. A matchwinning 80 from a less renowned batsman, or an important 2 wkt spell by a rookie bowler, is a lot more valuable than an insignificant 100 from a star batsman in a lost or drawn game, or an uninspiring 3 wkt haul that saves the bowler a place in the side. Nowadays there are efforts to "grade" a player based on past experience and performance. Among others,my good friend of 2 decades and former India captain Kris Srikkanth too has been an advocate of this system, arguing that " a player who has played a 100 tests cannot be expected to be paid the same amount as a player playing in his first series". My dear Cheeka, I beg to differ.... try saying this to the umpires!! “A player who has played 100 tests cannot be given leg before the same way as a debutant. A seasoned veteran should not be clobbered for a six for bowling a full toss, but a rookie can”. Cricket disagrees! A debutante's run is the same as a Star's run, as are the wickets. If a debutant takes 6 wkts or scores a 100 and wins a match for India today, why should he be paid lesser for the day's work, when the star batsman or bowler , having miseraby failed is raking in 10 times more money ?? Imagine the complacency this promotes in so called established stars, and the despondency among the aspiring stars. The solution? For winning games, have an overall pay packet, and divide it after the game based on performances that contributed to the win, based on evaluation. A crucial 35 notout by a new player when the side is chasing 190 to win and is 120-7 is far more valuable than a 60 made by a star coming in at 285-4 in the first innings. Same is the case with bowling and getting 2 wickets when defending 150, as opposed to getting 4 wkts when the opposition side is slogging to declare the innings. Who gives a damn whether Dravid or Sachin has played more and is paid more based on that , if India doesn't win. All of Sachin's 29 past hundreds couldn't save India yesterday. One single 200 from a new player could well have done so. Why all this ? Because like 1 billion other Indian fans... I care... I want my country to win... always win...never lose. And I am not paid to feel more for my country, and the least I can expect from those who are paid to satisfy the aspirations of millions like me is a 100 % effort to give their lives on the field trying to win games for our country. Be devastated when they don't... be ashamed....don't show their faces.... turn back their match fees.... offer to step down from the side, apologise to the fans and the country for not winning, at least, for not trying 100 %. This and This alone entitle the players to the glories that come when they do win. It is a matter of RIGHT for me, the Indian cricket fan, to expect this. Hari Sampath. *****************************************************************************8

[Lurker]

Good article Hari. The grading system debate is a dicey issue. For starters cricket of today is a commercial interest and hence everyone wants a pie for it. When SRT tells you that he plays for the love of the game he is lying, period. The day he decides to take no money would be the day I beleive him else it is all hollow words. At the same time I can also see why seniors would be given a far more lucrative contract. I mean a SRT, a Kumble, a Dravid wins you more matches than a Raina or a Kaif. And if a junior wins more game he gets to move up the ladder and gets paid more(like Zaheer Khan was awarded recently). I suppose it all boils down to where to draw the line between cricket and commercialisation of cricket. Maybe it would be great to go back to Amateur era for a change! xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Good article Hari. At the same time I can also see why seniors would be given a far more lucrative contract. I mean a SRT, a Kumble, a Dravid wins you more matches than a Raina or a Kaif. And if a junior wins more game he gets to move up the ladder and gets paid more(like Zaheer Khan was awarded recently). Ixxx

Sure I agree. But let the better performers first turn in the performances, win the game, and take home the money proportionally. All I am saying it make the system more professional and tuned towards performances of THAT day/game and give the rewards accordingly irrespective of who it is.

[Dhondy]

Very well written indeed, Hari. Passionate, well argued points. You had me nodding in agreement here:

What ails the Indian Cricketer? Simple. An overwhelming inner attitude that dictates some minimum statistical performance individually to stay in the side for the season. This goal itself defines and decides what the collective performance of the team is going to be.

[Anakin]

Don't agree, these guys don't play for the money, PERIOD. Whether you like it or not, they (the trio) are not corrupt and already have enough money. If money was the issue they could still be earning more than enough with their business and etc. without the hard work they put in for cricket. This was mostly a rant. You're saying bad form is part of the game but not willing to cut some slack for a player in bad form. Past performance proves the class which is important. I know this will result in a full fledged debate but in reality you'll always give a lara or srt or dravid more ropes than kaif.

[beetle]

I have always wanted basic equal pay along with performance based bonus....team bonus and individual bonus for good performance over some period of time.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Anakin]

I have always wanted basic equal pay along with performance based bonus....team bonus and individual bonus for good performance over some period of time.

In a perfect or communist world may be, not in real world though. Same things could be applied in too many cases, like making seniors field at short leg or stuff like that, doesn't work like that.

[kumble_rocks]

Top notch Article , athough it ignores the role of corporate sponsors who have vested interests in the team selection of certain marketable players. Some of the so called seniors may not care about the grading system , but it surely hurts if you lose corporate sponsorship . Big moolah is in corporate sponsorship after all.

[beetle]

>>>> Same things could be applied in too many cases, like making seniors field at short leg or stuff like that, doesn't work like that. If it benefits the team...why not? If they are good fielders in that position then why not? If they are better some place else...they should be fielding there.What ever works best for the team.

[Guest HariSampath]

Don't agree, these guys don't play for the money, PERIOD. Whether you like it or not, they (the trio) are not corrupt and already have enough money. If money was the issue they could still be earning more than enough with their business and etc. without the hard work they put in for cricket. This was mostly a rant. You're saying bad form is part of the game but not willing to cut some slack for a player in bad form. Past performance proves the class which is important. I know this will result in a full fledged debate but in reality you'll always give a lara or srt or dravid more ropes than kaif.

Well, they do play for the money both directly and also indirectly, or why would they twist the arms of BCCI for more money all the time, and use their clout to squeeze every dollar possible , and heavily inflate contract rates ? You are naive if you think they can earn more money from " their businesses".....cricket is the only business !! without continuing to be a top and well recognized player they are not much and all their businesses, endorsements etc depend directly on being in the side and being constantly seen on TV. Which is the reason why some cricketers group together and with their name, status and popularity, milk the entire system, and as to all incoming players, its either get along or get out. Thats why even in 2002 as well as other times, we always hear the words " senior players opposed to contract terms, " " senior cricketers to take up advertisers issue with board" , " senior cricketers not willing to endorse any other official partner of ICC as it clashes with their own endorsements" etc. Face it mate.... its a big big business, and Greg Chappell had indeed pressed some uncomfortable buttons, and it is now a well known fact what went on after WC 2007 in Windies. Dravid sent Dinesh Karthik to Ganguly 10 times with messages to get on with the batting, but Ganguly had his own agenda. Sponsors pay for endorsements based on amount of time any top player is seen on in the TV, this prompts many cricketers to just ensure they get selected, then try to get a top batting slot, and then bat for as long as possible. I have seen the most ugliest things and the wheeling dealings inside, the selection deals, the sponsors clout in getting players in whom they have invested a lot into sides, and even make comebacks etc. You know that sometimes there is pressure on Indian captains to make toss decisions based on beeing seen batting on TV between 7PM and 10PM, prime viewership time, because top players hitting boundaries in these time is a must for the sponsors' endorsement campaigns to work. In all this, the huge stakes of being in the side continuously, leads to lesser emphasis on the team to win, and which is what I am talking about. Wake up and smell the coffee. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. So, I am just saying that control the entire game , selection , etc solely based on TEAM winning, and only then players getting paid, and continuing to be in.... that alone will get their collective butts moving.

[Lurker]

But let the better performers first turn in the performances, win the game, and take home the money proportionally.

Ah if only wishes were horses my friend. The way I look at cricket is that it is a commercial interest today. A multi-billion golden duck. I repeat what I have mentioned before - everyone wants to take a share of it and that includes some of the biggest names. From a players point of view, the rationale is that people churn out money to watch them so why should BCCI hog all the money? Indeed this is the reason why there have been player strikes quite a few time. What essentially happens is that "stars" get paid a lot of money before the game, and if they win well they get paid even more. What you are suggesting will take away a vital part of their earnings which they surely will disagree to. It goes back to that whole point of "Well if you love cricket, why do you try to use it as a commercial bandwagon". xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Ah if only wishes were horses my friend. From a players point of view, the rationale is that people churn out money to watch them so why should BCCI hog all the money? Indeed this is the reason why there have been player strikes quite a few time. xxx

Thats what I am getting at. You see.at the bottom of the pyramid, are the millions of fans who form the market of Insurance companies, credit cards, motorcycles, soft drinks and everything, and thats why the players are so highly paid, becos if they are watched by us, getting famous by performing for us, and because we buy all the products that the sponsors use to pay them, then WE, the fans, are paying them. Thats what I mean by saying " he who pays the piper calls the tune" We, are paying them , the piper....so, lets call the tune , that is maximum number of wins as possible for India, and when that happens, we identify who made it happen and happily pay them according to what they did for winning.

[yoda]

You know that sometimes there is pressure on Indian captains to make toss decisions based on beeing seen batting on TV between 7PM and 10PM, prime viewership time, because top players hitting boundaries in these time is a must for the sponsors' endorsement campaigns to work.

C'mon. I am quite a critic and cynic myself, but even for me it would be hard to accept that. :haha:

[head coach]

Hari, When BCCI makes this much money why blame players? Australia may be fielding the best teams but we know that it loses out to India in terms of sheer number of fans who care for the game, and that translates into more eyeballs for advertisers; a strong economy and predominantly young population makes India the hub of cricket. BCCI has racked up $1 billion to date from selling commercial rights to Indian cricket for the next five years. NIKE paid $45 million to flash its logo on players' apparel and to sell garments to cricket fans. Modi hopes to eventually make $1.5 billion from Indian cricket, ten times what BCCI made in the last go-around. You cannot blame cricketers demanding a fair share of the pie be it through contract or bonsues! They are not going to accept performance based pay when this much money is being generated. It is simple!

[Guest HariSampath]

C'mon. I am quite a critic and cynic myself' date=' but even for me it would be hard to accept that. :haha:[/quote'] Mate...you ain't seen nuthin yet :cantstop: I too wish I could hold on to the idealistic view of 35 years back, but what I saw ensured that I am never gonna regain the lost innocence

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari, When BCCI makes this much money why blame players? Australia may be fielding the best teams but we know that it loses out to India in terms of sheer number of fans who care for the game, and that translates into more eyeballs for advertisers; a strong economy and predominantly young population makes India the hub of cricket. BCCI has racked up $1 billion to date from selling commercial rights to Indian cricket for the next five years. NIKE paid $45 million to flash its logo on players' apparel and to sell garments to cricket fans. Modi hopes to eventually make $1.5 billion from Indian cricket, ten times what BCCI made in the last go-around. You cannot blame cricketers demanding a fair share of the pie be it through contract or bonsues! They are not going to accept performance based pay when this much money is being generated. It is simple!

I am in 100% agreement...BCCI is a huge money pot, and as enablers and administrators of the game, they are all in the take. Thats why all former cricketers push all possible buttons to get into the board, state associations etc, and why do you think politicians form a queue as well. This is why the unwritten law is " a coach has to be able to get along with the players(senior) and also with the board" and players always prefer a foreign coach who plays along, Indian coach who remains mouthshut and a crawling media who inflate the hype so as to keep the markets boiling on a high

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari, When BCCI makes this much money why blame players? Australia may be fielding the best teams but we know that it loses out to India in terms of sheer number of fans who care for the game, and that translates into more eyeballs for advertisers; a strong economy and predominantly young population makes India the hub of cricket. BCCI has racked up $1 billion to date from selling commercial rights to Indian cricket for the next five years. NIKE paid $45 million to flash its logo on players' apparel and to sell garments to cricket fans. Modi hopes to eventually make $1.5 billion from Indian cricket, ten times what BCCI made in the last go-around. You cannot blame cricketers demanding a fair share of the pie be it through contract or bonsues! They are not going to accept performance based pay when this much money is being generated. It is simple!

This situation explains the dynamics behind your very well defined "selfish vs selfless" players...I am just saying we need more of the latter, and as many of the former who revert back to the basics, ie this is a game that WE are paying for as fans, and so, play it like WE want it to be played, and so win for the team. Then we will pay you, but first play and win.

[Guest HariSampath]

Top notch Article ' date=' athough it ignores the role of corporate sponsors who have vested interests in the team selection of certain marketable players. Some of the so called seniors may not care about the grading system , but it surely hurts if you lose corporate sponsorship . Big moolah is in corporate sponsorship after all.[/quote'] Agreed that I had not explicitly mentioned the corporate sponsors, but then how and why do the corporates sponsor the game ? eventually we the public and fans are paying Isn't it ? So we are the genuine economic as well as passion investing shareholders, so the results too have to be there as we want it. Otherwise, if we keep dumbly watching whatever is dished out, the corporates gain, board gains, BCCI gains.... while we who pay for it all , lose bigtime.