From being a gentleman’s sport to being just another reality TV show, Suresh Menon has witnessed cricket turning into a poorly functioning democracy. He talks about selection, class, administration and all that bothers the game…
If we start off talking about Nawab Pataudi, leading from the front with vision in only one eye and that too at the age of 21, when Nari Contractor almost passed away, that was the moment when people stood up and noticed Nawab. Do you find anybody close to resembling his greatness today?
In my reckoning, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly and… Michael Clarke as well, because the captain has also got to be subscribed by his time and place, so you have to judge a captain in his context.
Rahul Dravid made a statement during this year’s Jaipur Lit Fest that during the times of Gavaskars and Pataudis, it used to take 3-4 years of consecutive performance to create a brand out of themselves. And now, it’s all about 3 or 4 performances. So the question is, what sort of history is this current generation recording in terms of cricket?
History remains the same. History doesn’t change. Whereas, the interpretation of the history changes. I’m old enough to remember when one day cricket was slowly becoming a major thing and everybody looked upon it and said that it’s terrible. It’s not real cricket, etc. But now, one day cricket is more than an accepted format. So, it’s just a question of time. I mean, I’m personally not a great fan of T20, although I think T20 is a very democratic form of cricket, because it sort of reduces the level of differences in talent. And it’s great fun but I’m not a great fan of such democracy (laughs). Cricket is remarkable because it’s the only sport, which has three different formats. In a sense, they are three different sports. You can’t play Test cricket like T20, you can’t play T20 like One-Day or 50 over cricket. Test cricket hopefully should be left alone, as it’s pristine. And you have all the gimmicks in T20 which is fine. So, it satisfies both the traditionalists as well as the so-called modernists who want to see change all the time. And I think cricket’s a very lucky sport in that sense.
Often these days, the ‘purists’ complain that people are not coming to the stands to watch Test matches, but don’t you think often Test cricket is being marketed in such a way that it presents itself as a game which is not really understood by everybody, and not meant for all?
My problem is with ‘the Television people’. I was having a discussion with somebody and I said that you know the sad thing is that a lot of people who play the game are not as passionate about it as the people who watch. And when they become experts, there’s a certain amount of “I’ve seen it all, I’ve done it all” kind of thing which actually turn away viewers. What they should be doing is explaining it and making people more familiar with it. And maybe in some way, they are driving people away because people just don’t get enough from that kind of thing. And naturally television is the biggest window to the games.
Television broadcast is that one element which has the biggest impression on the viewers’ mind at the end of the day. And if we talk of the broadcasting scenario of Indian cricket right now, do you think that there needs to be a shift of guard in terms of the commentary box in India?
See, first of all, I think it’s wrong that the commentator should be chosen by the BCCI, which is ridiculous. And second of all, I think there’s a certain lack of professionalism in the sense that just because you’ve played cricket does not automatically make you a good commentator, I mean some of the worst commentators in the world have played 100 Test matches. They are two separate skills. And among the recent players, I’m very impressed with Sourav for example. He’s very honest. Both Sourav and Dravid are very honest, very straight-forward, no frays, no non-sense you know. And I think, there will always be the good commentators, the bad commentators and sometimes, one outweighs the other. It’s bad luck or good luck, depends.
Do you think there needs to be some kind of a setup to sort of check player-selector or player-administrator relationships?
There has to be a players’ association. Players do not have a voice in the BCCI which is ridiculous. As the sport has grown over the years, the various countries have put in place a players’ body. The BCCI unfortunately sees the players’ body as a trade union. It is NOT a trade union. It’s a body that discusses and debates issues, because, you know, they are after all the ones who play the game and the ones who administer have to have a common meeting ground. You can’t just decide that this year you will play 25 Test matches, whether you like it or not. That’s not the way to run a sport.
And how do you view the role of education in cricket? There is a certain grammar in playing the game. So do you feel that sort of education is slightly undermined in India?
No, I don’t think so. I think there are very fine coaches in India and don’t forget that all these recent players that we have been just talking about are the ones who have brought us to number 1 in the world in two forms of the game. I think the system is very good. I mean, you will have the odd set of talent, it sort of disappears in the cracks but more or less, the system is very sound.
And if we talk of the academics in the sense that we know Anil Kumble was a certified engineer but he went on to play cricket. In the current crop and even in the past, we have seen that most Indian cricketers are college drop-outs or they have just graduated. When they are finished with their playing career, does having an academic background pave their way towards administration in the sport as well?
But suppose, they may not be interested in administration. We are assuming that all players are interested in the media and administration and coaching. But they might not be. Why are we imposing our set of ambitions on them? I have had my problems with the board, there’s no transparency or accountability. But the fact is that let us not forget that they are separate skills. Playing is a skill separate from administering. There are some players who are very good. Anil Kumble has come through the election system, Javagal Srinath has come through the election system. They are not being nominated in a placid situation. And I think they are doing a marvelous job. So you have cricketers who can do that. At the same time, you have cricketers who can’t do that, like in any other field. You have the cricketer who is a good administrator, and you have a cricketer who is a crook.
Ganguly says that when he became captain, his challenge was to bring these great one-man shows and form a great team. And Indian cricket has always depended on a one-man show kind of thing. Tendulkar, Dravid in the Test matches, Kumble in the bowling department. Is this a consequence of a flawed logic at the junior levels? Are the junior budding cricketers being brought up by looking at person over performance?
It’s an issue about selection. I think the best selectors should be picked at the junior level. It does not take a great selector to pick a national team. Everybody can pick 15-16 of the best 30 available. Then, eleven or twelve or whatever. But fifteen or sixteen, you know, my driver can pick the team, my dhobi can pick the team. You’re not going to drop Sachin Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid. You’re not going to drop Sourav Ganguly because they are your automatic choices when they are at their best. So, picking an Indian team is the easiest thing in the world in that sense. But I would like to see a selector sit and pick an under-15 team. I’d like to see a Test cricketer sit and pick an under-19 team. I’d like to see selectors pick the university side. University cricket is neglected. Somehow, our best players in the past came through the university system which is now virtually non-existent.
Something of which is very well documented in Ramchandra Guha’s book A Corner of the Foreign Fieldas well.
Yeah, exactly. So, certain aspects that have worked well for you, you have suddenly turned your back. And certain aspects that haven’t worked so well, you’re still continuing with it.
And as you talk of selectors going to the ground level, we have hardly seen any good report or any good writing from the ground level of this sport in the country, considering that it is the most widely followed sport in the country as well…
I have this theory that doctors and journalists should not take the profession unless they have a passion for it. If you look at journalism as a job, as something to just make money out of or as something to put food on the table or whatever, I think you’re doing it a disservice. If you’re a passionate cricketer, you will be there. You were talking about Ram. We watched a lot of cricket together. I don’t even report daily so much and Ram of course never was in a newspaper. But we still watched local league cricket, we watched Ranji trophy cricket and you have to be passionate enough about cricket to watch it at that level and not just watch it at an international level. Anybody can report about international cricket. But let us see how your judgment is about a 15 year-old left-arm spinner. What is he doing wrong? Let us see your judgment there. That’s what I’d like to see.
I remember you writing a blog for Cricket Next and you had written this line that cricket has made poets out of prose writers. How apt is that statement in today’s date?
I think we’ve still got some very well-timed cricket writers. I’m reading my friend Gideon Haigh’s book on Shane Warne for example. I’ve just started reading it. It’s marvelous.
On a larger perspective, earlier we used to open the back pages of newspapers and we used to have brilliant match reports which would read better than many features, so to say…
I don’t think the best cricket writing now is coming from newspapers. I think the best cricket writing is now coming out of websites. Either Cricinfo or Wisdenindia.com, because there’s a conscious attempt to write well there. And if you don’t write well, you will not be there.
One question that I wanted to ask you, does there exist anything like a caste virus in Indian cricket?
Interestingly enough, no. I don’t think so. I think cricket and movies are two areas where I think class plays as large a role as politics for example.
So is it coincidental that Brahmins have dominated the team line-ups?
Yes, coincidentally. Because, Brahmins of a certain generation, may be not so much today, but certainly a couple of generations ago, had better and greater opportunities. It’s as simple as that. I’m not saying that it’s a perfect system but what I’m saying is I don’t think it plays such a major role.
What do you make of the current spinning options of India?
Well, in the current spinning options of India, I don’t see a really outstanding performer right now. But who knows. May be in the coming overseas period, somebody might come… and surprise us.
Because you mention spinning, you wrote in Pataudi: Nawab of Cricklet, that as a matter of fact Nawab Pataudi had this strategy of relying on India’s greatest strength, ‘spin’ and he sort of created this legacy of not producing a crop of good fast bowlers.
I think Tiger killed a whole generation of fast bowlers. There’s no doubt about it (laughs). But with good reasons. Because in Tiger’s reckoning, there was nobody good enough. So, he would rather play the four best bowlers regardless of whether they were spinners or pacers.
On the larger picture, that legacy must have been passed on like a mantra and you think that also played a part in not producing a good bulk of fast bowlers.
We have produced very good fast bowlers. I think Zaheer and Javagal are as good as they get.
I’m talking more on the lines of mass production…
We haven’t mass produced spinners either, in recent times. I think the tracks have been militating against refining bowlers, forget whether they are fast or spinning. The fact is that, the tracks are all batsman-friendly.
And is there any thought being put on to what sort of tracks junior players play on?
I would like to think there is, because there are formal committees appointed just for that purpose. If you come through that system and as I said, you cannot imagine anyone to be slipping through the system. The system will capture them. And that’s the important thing. You might have an odd player who slipped through. That’s a very very rare case. The average good player will get his day in the sun. He will come through the system. The system will capture him. You know, he will not fall through the net.
And if we talk of the current cricket schedules these players are on and also that the crowds have to go through, do you think, it’s not only exhausting players but it’s also exhausting the crowds from the game?
I don’t know about the crowd but certainly for the players, and this is what I was saying earlier about a proper players’ association. But players also argue that they have a short life-span. So, it’s difficult. I mean, you know, players take a break from international cricket and then play IPL or company matches or whatever. So, you can have it both ways. You’ve got to decide one way or the other. I think it’s also slightly exaggerated, this whole business of too much cricket. I think over the years, maybe there are more formats now and there’s little more travelling but in terms of the actual number of match days, I don’t think there’s a great difference. More or less, it’s been kind of steady over the last many years.
You have seen so much of cricket for so much time now, you’ve seen so many generations of cricketers, do you see any transition or any change in the cricketing culture of India?
Yes and no, I think is the honest answer. There is a change in the tradition. Indians are far more self-confident, far more aware, exposed to a whole lot more than some of the earlier generations were. But essentially I think the Indian-ness in the kind of cricket they play has remained more or less the same.
And we were talking about Nawab Pataudi…
You’re writing a book, is it? (laughs)
No no. Just a long interview… Nawab Pataudi was seen as a great leader because he instilled belief in few men who did not have the confidence to compete against the rest of the world. Do you think with the current crop of the Indian cricketers, some of them have over-confidence and is the current leader able to tackle this issue?
I don’t think it’s a major issue. It’s fun for the media to write about or talk about these things, but I don’t think these are major issues at all. I’d rather have a player who is over-confident than under-confident. I mean it’s a personal choice.
Why?
At least over-confidence implies a certain amount of confidence. Under-confidence means there’s no confidence at all.
As a journalist, which one has been your most cherished cricket moment?
That’s tough. There have been many. Well, the Test match in Chennai, meeting Don Bradman. You know, cricket puts you in touch with a lot of people whom you would never otherwise meet. Then, meeting Nelson Mandela. All this is only because of cricket. There’s no way I could have walked in and met Nelson Mandela or Don Bradman if I wasn’t a cricket writer.
Whom do you have always looked up to as a cricket writer?
I have been a great fan of Jack Fingleton, John Allott, the great cricket writers in the past. Among current writers, Gideon Haigh, Ram Guha, Rahul Bhattacharya, are all marvelous writers. That’s quite a few. Padam Singh was a great cricket writer; I was a huge fan, and I was at a great loss when he died. There have been many people who have written with a lot of passion and lot of involvement in the game.
