The Ashes and us - How desi cricket is done

[diga]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150720/jsp/opinion/story_32490.jsp#.VazkCbX--2F

Contrast this with the Indian situation. Here every commentator signs a contract where he undertakes not to comment on or criticize matters connected to team selection or to say anything that might be seen by the BCCI's panjandrums as lése majesté. No player who knows what's good for him will contradict the Board, not unless he wants to be exiled to the outer wilderness. The only player who has publicly criticized the BCCI in recent times is Bishan Singh Bedi, and he stopped playing competitive cricket 35 years years ago. Less indiscreet, more ingratiating retirees have made careers out of the self-congratulatory banter that passes for commentary in India. Listening to David Gower, Michael Atherton and Shane Warne commentating on the Ashes, you know that they aren't censoring themselves. They have their tics and foibles and they can be intensely irritating, but they speak as independent professionals, not as helots in suits. Ian Chappell refused to commentate on a limited overs series between India and Australia in 2013 because ESPN conveyed to him that he would be subject to BCCI restrictions. The terms for employment were that commentators couldn't criticize Indian team selection, or disagree with the Board's position on the decision review system or discuss administrative matters. Chappell turned the contract down because he didn't think he could do his job properly within those limitations. No desi commentator that I know of has taken a similar stand - which probably explains the toothless, neutered quality of BCCI-vetted commentary.

[kruiser]

wow.. he is a brave journo.. who is the employer? Seeni mama is about to pay a vist to them :)

[singhprakash72]

If Bishen Bedi is allowed to do commentary...but BCCI will ban him from around 100 miles from Stadium

[Precambrian]

I am sorry, but where have Atherton or Nasser Hussain ever criticized ECB over air? Didn't ECB just commit a blatant conflict of interests thingy by appointing a prominent SKY employee as their Director of Cricket? Strauss can control English cricket, and given his ties with its broadcaster, there is a possibility at least on paper that selections might be influenced by Sky isn't there? I agree Indian commentators largely suck. But to say they are all BCCI's stooges is just not it. Their business is to commentate on the match, not on things outside it.

[G_B_]

Listening to David Gower, Michael Atherton and Shane Warne commentating on the Ashes, you know that they aren't censoring themselves.

yes they are.... Notice how they stopped talking smack about the IPL and its "disastrous impact on world cricket" now that Sky their paymasters show it in the UK Kesvan as usual is way of the mark. Poor man's Ramchandra Guha. Either he does not have the ground realities of English cricket which implies he is poor as a journalist or he basically wants to mislead the lay Indian reader who does not have knowledge of English cricket into believing that there is some sort of brilliant situation in England. Anybody who works for Rupert Murdoch companies never has 100% freedom. I mean ffs journalists working for his titles cant be too critical of Israel. The entire British media is bought out by somebody while the BBC is too politically correct.

[Precambrian]

The terms for employment were that commentators couldn't criticize Indian team selection, or disagree with the Board's position on the decision review system or discuss administrative matters.

I do not recollect one instance where the English team selection was criticized on air by the commentators in the ongoing Ashes. That includes Lyth, Ballance and Bell. All three who have been underperforming recently. DRS is a topic that needs to be discussed, and India's position on it was discussed a lot of times, to the extent it became actually irritating. If a commentator cannot resist himself from alluding to DRS every time a decision is given/not given, I don't think he is actually doing his job. Administrative matters - What the heck? A commentator is supposed to comment on the match happenings, not what happens in administration or backoffice.

[Precambrian]

yes they are.... Notice how they stopped talking smack about the IPL and its "disastrous impact on world cricket" now that Sky their paymasters show it in the UK Kesvan as usual is way of the mark. Poor man's Ramchandra Guha. Either he does not have the ground realities of English cricket which implies he is poor as a journalist or he basically wants to mislead the lay Indian reader who does not have knowledge of English cricket into believing that there is some sort of brilliant situation in England. Anybody who works for Rupert Murdoch companies never has 100% freedom. I mean ffs journalists working for his titles cant be too critical of Israel. The entire British media is bought out by somebody while the BBC is too politically correct.

His pieces are too one sided. Basically he draws up his agenda and then fits everything else around him to suit that. Just poor journalism. There was a third man segment during the Lords test where Steven Smith's unorthodox batting was actually hailed and 20-20 cricket credited for 'changing the game'. Must be a first! :hatsoff:

[Gollum]

The Ashes and us - How desi cricket is done

- Mukul Kesavan Watching the Ashes, live, makes you despair for Indian cricket. Here is the oldest rivalry in cricket, over-exposed to the point where one Ashes series seems to bleed into the next one without a break, and yet England and Australia manage to put on a show that has cricket fans without a dog in the fight, stalking the series. What are the odds on a third country fan watching India play Zimbabwe? Vanishingly small. This has something to do with Zimbabwe being a cricketing minnow, but more worryingly, it has to do with the tawdriness that borders Indian cricket like a dirty halo. If India was to play Pakistan in a five Test series, the stadiums will be three-quarters empty, such spectators as there are will be freeloaders with passes, the commentary will be carefully spayed in keeping with the contractual obligations of the commentators, and the camera will treat us to glimpses of fat men in sun glasses who administer cricket in this country. Forget third country fans; why would desis follow a spectacle as enervated, as tacky, as corrupt as this? There is nothing about Indian cricket that lifts the heart. Its most lucrative enterprise, the IPL, has just had two of its eight franchises suspended for two years. This cleansing of the stables might seem a hopeful sign, but N. Srinivasan, who owns one of these corrupt franchises, is still president of the ICC and his henchmen still occupy crucial administrative positions within the BCCI and the IPL. Their apologists continue to appear on television panels warning against 'precipitate' action, ostensibly because they are concerned about the damage to cricketing livelihoods. Except that these are the same people who have tried to explain away every IPL scandal by arguing that the corruption that afflicted the tournament only ever tarnished bit players on the fringes, not the league itself. After the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee's verdict, this is a hard argument to make, so the business-as-usual position is now dressed up as concern for the honest majority earning its crust via the IPL. The disheartening thing about Indian cricket isn't only that its shamateur patrons are arrogant and/or corrupt; it is that its cricketers are such obedient clients. In other countries, players and cricket boards have public disagreements. These aren't always constructive - the stand-off between the West Indian Cricket Board and some of its best players nearly crippled West Indian cricket - but they indicate that players in these countries aren't creatures of their boards. The very public row between Kevin Pietersen and the ECB played out like low farce, but it happened in the open, not behind closed doors. Players, past and present, took sides. They were interviewed about the quarrel, they wrote about it in national newspapers, the whole controversy got a thorough airing. Nasser Hussain, who has a lucrative career doing television commentary for Sky, didn't stop to think about what the English Cricket Board would make of his views because the ECB has no control over the commentators who cover the cricket that it administers. Contrast this with the Indian situation. Here every commentator signs a contract where he undertakes not to comment on or criticize matters connected to team selection or to say anything that might be seen by the BCCI's panjandrums as lése majesté. No player who knows what's good for him will contradict the Board, not unless he wants to be exiled to the outer wilderness. The only player who has publicly criticized the BCCI in recent times is Bishan Singh Bedi, and he stopped playing competitive cricket 35 years years ago. Less indiscreet, more ingratiating retirees have made careers out of the self-congratulatory banter that passes for commentary in India. Listening to David Gower, Michael Atherton and Shane Warne commentating on the Ashes, you know that they aren't censoring themselves. They have their tics and foibles and they can be intensely irritating, but they speak as independent professionals, not as helots in suits. Ian Chappell refused to commentate on a limited overs series between India and Australia in 2013 because ESPN conveyed to him that he would be subject to BCCI restrictions. The terms for employment were that commentators couldn't criticize Indian team selection, or disagree with the Board's position on the decision review system or discuss administrative matters. Chappell turned the contract down because he didn't think he could do his job properly within those limitations. No desi commentator that I know of has taken a similar stand - which probably explains the toothless, neutered quality of BCCI-vetted commentary. Is it too much to ask that players and ex-players take principled stands against the Board when their livelihoods hang in the balance? It is certainly the case that English and Australian players face less institutional pressure to conform because their cricket boards aren't as vindictive and domineering as the BCCI. Atherton doesn't have to be 'brave' to criticize the ECB because the ECB hasn't sent out a diktat asking for servile obedience. Also cricketers have short playing careers; to ask them to put these on the line in the service of plain-speaking given the BCCI's intolerance of dissent is perhaps too much to ask. The same logic can be extended to the conformity of ex-players who want to make lucrative careers out of commentary: why rock the boat? Given that 99 per cent of cricket commentary is a description of on-field action, what's the harm in skirting the one per cent that the Board doesn't want discussed? One answer to this question was supplied on the day that the spot-fixing scandal broke. In the words of Hindustan Times, "[t]he day the controversy surfaced, fans watched in disgust as the commentators refused to utter a word on the issue on the official channel". Another response might be that even if we can't expect players to explicitly challenge the Board, it isn't unreasonable to expect them to keep their distance from the individuals who constitute it. If you visit the website of India Cements Ltd., the company controlled by N. Srinivasan, which owns the suspended Chennai Super Kings franchise, and click on the 'Careers' link, you are taken to a page illustrated with photographs of four distinguished cricketers: Rahul Dravid, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Dinesh Karthik and Ravichandran Ashwin. All of them are listed as employees of India Cements. There was a time when there was no money in cricket and players needed sinecures that were provided by companies like India Cements and the State Bank of India. That was then; cricket in India is now awash with money. Why should successful, hugely well-paid players accept sinecures in a company that has a commercial interest in the game they play? The conflicts of interest that might emerge from such a connection are evident. These can be avoided without ostentatiously invoking principle or confronting the BCCI. So why are those pictures up there? The way Indian cricket is played, administered and broadcast has been systematically debauched over the past decade. There's a reason why watching the Ashes is a kind of idyll, and it isn't only because the grass is greener and the stadium amenities include champagne. I watch the Ashes because it is a contest between two teams of free men, professionally covered by self-respecting commentators. There was a time when Indian teams included awkward, authority-averse leaders like Lala Amarnath and Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi and Bishan Bedi and Sunil Gavaskar who spoke their minds. There was an electricity to them, an unpredictability that filled stadiums. That time is gone. Series involving India are now played by talented clients and glossed by obedient experts. Why should we watch them?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150720/jsp/opinion/story_32490.jsp#.Va3zYKSqqkr

[prasadiyer]

Mukul Kesavan seems to have gotten it wrong. I have been following the Lords Test including the post-match Verdict, didn't hear anything controversial or provocative. I think all commentators are careful not to rub their paymasters or the ICC the wrong way, not just Indian commentators. The written journalism is more where the problem lies. English cricket writers are merciless when they analyze England's failures in batting and bowling. Indian cricket writers on the other hand prefer to soft-pedal their criticism.

[putrevus]

This guy is pathetic, where was this guy when ECB shamelessly paraded their players and their wives to sit on lap of crook Stanford. Which board in world has given equal say to players answer is none.Players will always be at mercy of boards in cricket .There are only 11 spots for any national team and that alone will give all boards power over players. Why is he fighting for players they are not complaining. Spot fixing scandals happened in county cricket too and I have news for this guy there will be more scandals in cricket in future too. Which Sky and Channel nine commentator has repeatedly criticized their boards,I don't understand what these i*diots want from these ex players.Mr.Keshvan you are there with almighty pen and platform to address the evils of BCCI, ask your media counterparts to join you and leave ex players alone. Guys like Keshvan are still stuck in colonial mindset where the masters can do no wrong. BCCI is no saint but people need to pump their brakes before dumping all that is evil in sport is due to BCCI alone.

[mishra]

^ +1. I wanted to say the same. ECB ensures everyone cow tow else he is out. I have never seen a board like ECB where its legendry players like Swan and KP are replaced by Ali and Ballance. One can say PCB and WICB has done similar steps but they have been criticised for that. how many times do we see commies speaking their views on camera why arent they discussing that Lords humiliation has a root cause and that is dropping its best players and appointment of Strauss.

[special K]

All the minnow nations watch with bedazzlement the spectacle of the real cricket world championship between England and Australia. These two minnow cricket nations India and Pakistan, even these cricket supporters adopt an ashes team to support. How many English and crims adopt India/Pakistan during their little rivalry? The ashes is cricket. Without it cricket wouldn't exist.

[Number]

Mukul Kesavan is a self loathing idiot. Ram Guha of cricket journalism.

[HippoSucks]

Where was Mukul Kesavan when spot-fixing occured in county cricket? Since when does commentary majorly impact the viewership of test matches? Many times I mute the commentary because I do not want to hear Shane Warne talking about a pig game (meant for 16 year olds) that he plays. Also how can commentary influence how many viewers go to the stadium to watch the game live? Personally I watch a match is the quality of cricket is good. I could hardly care less about how many of the players "speak their mind" freely. That being said, I love watching the Ashes and have hardly missed a session of it over the past few years. However the reason for it is the rivalry between the two teams (the same rivalry that exists between Pakistan and India), the underlying history (which also exists between Pakistan and India), the "greener grass" and broadcast quality. If a series between Pakistan and India was played (which looks likely in December) and the broadcast quality was decent, I assure you that the stands will not be "three-quarters empty".

[RedFever]

His article in cricinfo is titled - Why the Ashes is watchable and Indian cricket isn't http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/901103.html One of the many anti-India articles on cricinfo. Also this guy Mukul Kesavan teaches history at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi.

[amiret]

....the toothless' date=' neutered quality of BCCI-vetted commentary. [/quote'] jaisi Cricket waisi commentary :haha:

[G_B_]

His article in cricinfo is titled - Why the Ashes is watchable and Indian cricket isn't http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/901103.html One of the many anti-India articles on cricinfo. Also this guy Mukul Kesavan teaches history at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi.

its no wonder why cricinfo is losing its appeal among Indian fans. If not for statsguru i would never visit the site.

[diga]

I have never heard much of a talk against the establishment, but there is a healthy discussion on cricketing matters in Ashes,like the selection,captaincy etc... but hasnt the BCCI banned discussion on captaincy,selection? One cant discuss these on air

[Stan AF]

Even if he gets it wrong on english cricket, he is spot on about indian cricket. And I have to say I watched 2 ashes test matches and didn't bother to watch either the ind-bd or ind-zim series. Seriously, no inclination to watch at all.

[retired_hurt]

Mukul Kesavan seems to have gotten it wrong. I have been following the Lords Test including the post-match Verdict, didn't hear anything controversial or provocative. I think all commentators are careful not to rub their paymasters or the ICC the wrong way, not just Indian commentators. The written journalism is more where the problem lies. English cricket writers are merciless when they analyze England's failures in batting and bowling. Indian cricket writers on the other hand prefer to soft-pedal their criticism.

I disagree. Writers like Mike Selvey, Nasser Hussain seem soft on certain players and coach. I have never seen these guys say anything harsh about Andy Flower or Peter Morores, whereas they never miss an opportunity to castigate KP.