The Indians need to be as good (or as bad - depending on your point of view) as the aussies when it comes to appealing. And in most cases, we are! The Indians should and DO appeal for any possible chance that the umpire will give it out. Kumble is no saint in that matter. And why not?
As is evident in the current Ind-Aus Test series, the Aussies are more effective, though.
Unfortunately, there is no great yardstick in determining whether it all evens out for a player in the end, and going by memory is certainly not a good yardstick because it is always selective. I
don't care if it evens out or not for a particular player, because circumstances are different on each occasion. It should be about whether the player is OUT or NOT OUT on that occasion, and given today's technology, it is outright STUPID that the administrators do not allow the use of technology to make decisions or offer some sort of a challenge system. Cricket will suffer until some action is taken regarding this. All this talk about umpires being human and should be allowed to make mistakes is BULLSHIT - no one watches the game to see umpires making mistakes.
Its so ironic that cricket introduced "hawk eye" to the world - but its tennis and other sports that are benefiting from the technology to bring fairness and justice to the game, while all the ICC can do is set up an exploratory committee to figure out if it is worth introducing more technology into the game.
Wake up, ICC, before its too late!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Where is our coach?
Remember this incident:
Port Elizabeth, December 9, 1992
A straightforward win by South Africa will be remembered less than the controversy which ensued when Kapil Dev ran out Gary Kirsten for backing up before he bowled the ball.
Kapil did not warn the batsman, having done so three times previously on the tour. Kirsten reacted angrily before walking off.
Later, in the same over, Kepler Wessels appears to collide with Kapil as he turned for a second run. India complained that Wessels had hit Kapil on the shin with his bat. The Indians said Kirsten had shown dissent and incited the crowd.
Clive Lloyd, the match referee, announced the next day that Wessels had admitted that his bat had come into contact with Kapil, but said it was unintentional.
Llyod did not see the incident and, as the television cameras had been following the ball, he said the truth could not be established. Kirsten was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for unacceptable conduct.
http://penthegame.blogspot.com/2006/12/india-south-africa-odi-encounters.html
Two cases in point:
1) Since the Wessels incident could not be proved, he was let off. I am sure there have been many instances like this where the player has been let off because of lack of concrete evidence - the real problem in the Bhajji-Symonds case is not whether 'monkey' should be
considered a racial slur, its that there is NO proof Bhajji said that. It's Symonds' and Ponting's (who was nowhere near the location where the incident occurred) word vs. Bhajji's and Tendulkar's (who was within hearing distance and categorically denied that Bhajji made a
racial slur) word. This is just ridiculous. The match referee should also be fired - India can suggest that Bhajji was wrongly accused by a bunch of white blokes (including the referee) and we should bring in racial connotations to this incident.
2) I wonder why Gary Kirsten hasn't said anything regarding this incident. I would have expected him to whole-heartedly support the Indian case (no matter whether he is with the team or not for now), since he is going to join the Indian team as a coach very soon. I am
very surprised that he hasn't come all out in support of the team. I don't get a good feel about this. This almost reeks of disinterest, and is not the best way to start a coaching stint.
We should get back at the aussies by reporting any verbal abuse - I don't think the aussies can play without abusing. If they call someone a 'bastard', that should be reported as an insult. The
batsmen should wear some audio recording equipment when they are out in the middle for proof - the whole world will then have proof of the cheats and hooligans that the aussies are!
Or do what Sarwan did to McGrath - McGrath asked Sarwan how did Lara's c*ck taste in the dressing room, to which Sarwan replied, 'How should I know -- ask your wife'.
Port Elizabeth, December 9, 1992
A straightforward win by South Africa will be remembered less than the controversy which ensued when Kapil Dev ran out Gary Kirsten for backing up before he bowled the ball.
Kapil did not warn the batsman, having done so three times previously on the tour. Kirsten reacted angrily before walking off.
Later, in the same over, Kepler Wessels appears to collide with Kapil as he turned for a second run. India complained that Wessels had hit Kapil on the shin with his bat. The Indians said Kirsten had shown dissent and incited the crowd.
Clive Lloyd, the match referee, announced the next day that Wessels had admitted that his bat had come into contact with Kapil, but said it was unintentional.
Llyod did not see the incident and, as the television cameras had been following the ball, he said the truth could not be established. Kirsten was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for unacceptable conduct.
http://penthegame.blogspot.com
Two cases in point:
1) Since the Wessels incident could not be proved, he was let off. I am sure there have been many instances like this where the player has been let off because of lack of concrete evidence - the real problem in the Bhajji-Symonds case is not whether 'monkey' should be
considered a racial slur, its that there is NO proof Bhajji said that. It's Symonds' and Ponting's (who was nowhere near the location where the incident occurred) word vs. Bhajji's and Tendulkar's (who was within hearing distance and categorically denied that Bhajji made a
racial slur) word. This is just ridiculous. The match referee should also be fired - India can suggest that Bhajji was wrongly accused by a bunch of white blokes (including the referee) and we should bring in racial connotations to this incident.
2) I wonder why Gary Kirsten hasn't said anything regarding this incident. I would have expected him to whole-heartedly support the Indian case (no matter whether he is with the team or not for now), since he is going to join the Indian team as a coach very soon. I am
very surprised that he hasn't come all out in support of the team. I don't get a good feel about this. This almost reeks of disinterest, and is not the best way to start a coaching stint.
We should get back at the aussies by reporting any verbal abuse - I don't think the aussies can play without abusing. If they call someone a 'bastard', that should be reported as an insult. The
batsmen should wear some audio recording equipment when they are out in the middle for proof - the whole world will then have proof of the cheats and hooligans that the aussies are!
Or do what Sarwan did to McGrath - McGrath asked Sarwan how did Lara's c*ck taste in the dressing room, to which Sarwan replied, 'How should I know -- ask your wife'.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Cricket needs more technology for umpiring decisions
Cricket coverage these days provides great slow-motion replays, and the recent introduction of "hot spot" replay, "snicko" and extra-slow-motion replay has certainly allowed the viewer to see cricket in a new light. But it has also highlighted the gross ineptitude of cricket UMPIRES in this game. We really need this advanced technology to be used in making sound umpiring decisions, or atleast helping the umpires make correct decisions.
The "conservative" folks of this game say that umpires are humans and they make mistakes just like batsmen and bowlers, and therefore should be acceptable. I think that is ridiculous!! The umpires are supposed to "rule on the plays of a game"... it is their job get it RIGHT. If technology can provide a better way of making decisions, or can support more sound decision-making, then it is imperative that the game of CRICKET use what is available.
Besides, no spectator wants to watch an umpire make mistakes. They do want to see batsmen, bowlers, and fielders make mistakes, because that is part of the entertainment the game provides. There is no other sport in my mind that lets go so many bad umpiring decisions to "human" error.
I right this blog on the 5th day of the India-Australia Test Match being played at Sydney Cricket Ground. Steve Bucknor has made so many errors in the Test match, it is not even funny!! He gave Dravid out caught behind as it flicked the pad when the ball was no where near the bat.
Given today's technology available in every cricket match, it is imperative that cricket introduces some sort of a CHALLENGE system akin to NFL and Grand Slam Tennis tournaments. In this system, the captain from either side has 2 (or 3) challenges, and can use it if he wants to question a decision of the umpire. Only if there is conclusive evidence from replays to over turn the decision, should the decision be overturned. If the challenge over turns the decision then it should not deduct the number of available challenges.
As a spectator, I do not pay my time or money to watch umpires make mistakes. As far as I am concerned, given the available technology, it is just NOT cricket to not use it!
The "conservative" folks of this game say that umpires are humans and they make mistakes just like batsmen and bowlers, and therefore should be acceptable. I think that is ridiculous!! The umpires are supposed to "rule on the plays of a game"... it is their job get it RIGHT. If technology can provide a better way of making decisions, or can support more sound decision-making, then it is imperative that the game of CRICKET use what is available.
Besides, no spectator wants to watch an umpire make mistakes. They do want to see batsmen, bowlers, and fielders make mistakes, because that is part of the entertainment the game provides. There is no other sport in my mind that lets go so many bad umpiring decisions to "human" error.
I right this blog on the 5th day of the India-Australia Test Match being played at Sydney Cricket Ground. Steve Bucknor has made so many errors in the Test match, it is not even funny!! He gave Dravid out caught behind as it flicked the pad when the ball was no where near the bat.
Given today's technology available in every cricket match, it is imperative that cricket introduces some sort of a CHALLENGE system akin to NFL and Grand Slam Tennis tournaments. In this system, the captain from either side has 2 (or 3) challenges, and can use it if he wants to question a decision of the umpire. Only if there is conclusive evidence from replays to over turn the decision, should the decision be overturned. If the challenge over turns the decision then it should not deduct the number of available challenges.
As a spectator, I do not pay my time or money to watch umpires make mistakes. As far as I am concerned, given the available technology, it is just NOT cricket to not use it!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Twenty20 Cup
I write this blog immediately after watching a taped broadcast of India beating Pakistan in a nerve-wracking final at the Wanderers in Jo'Berg, SA.
My thoughts after watching about 3 games of this tournament, but following the scores closely on cricinfo.com and watching some snippets on youtube.
The format
I believe T20 is here to stay!! This World cup has provided several close matches and I have been very impressed by the quality of cricket that was played throughout the tournament. There were a lot of close matches, and although it sounds to the traditional cricketer as a "wham-bam-thankyou-mam" format, it really isn't and requires a fair amount of skill and planning. I think in the next 2-3 years, this format will replace 1-day cricket. I still hope that Test cricket continues, but I won't mind seeing the natural death of 1-day cricket. 50-over-a-side matches take too long to complete, and overs 15-40 are usually very boring and don't add much value to the game. The "real" 2007 world cup in the Caribbean was probably the most boring sporting event ever -- and not only because India and Pakistan were knocked out very early.
India winning this world cup is probably great for the game and this format. BCCI, in all its endeavors to make as many profits as it possibly can, has steered away from the short format since it is not as lucrative as the 1-day format. The Indian public is willing to sit for a whole day and watch a game, thereby allowing advertisements to be squeezed in between every over. T20 is faster-paced, with not as much room for ads, and I doubt BCCI would give it as much priority had India not done well in this tournament. The Indian win will now force BCCI to look into this format and hopefully schedule a lot more T20 games with touring teams rather than pointless 7-match 1-day series.
The Indian Team
India went into this world cup as underdogs and without their 3 main batting stars - Tendulkar, Dravid, and Ganguly. This was a blessing in disguise, and I am truly amazed at how some of the players stepped up and showed the kind of application, enthusiasm, and aggression that is rarely seen among Indians!
My players for the future are:
-- Rohit Sharma -- very good technique, will turn out to be a great and dependable middle order batsman (watch out Dravid!)
-- Gautam Gambhir -- he has been in and out of the team for a while now, but I think he deserves a permanent place in all formats of the game. I'd rather see him open the innings in Tests ahead of Dinesh Karthik.
-- Irfan Pathan -- now that Greg Chappell has gone for good and stopped screwing up Irfan's brains, I think he has a future, at least in the shorter formats (1-day, T20). He has lost a lot of pace, and will go for many runs in some matches, but he has a very good attitude and deserves to be persisted with.
-- Yusuf Pathan -- too early to say, but obviously he looks promising. I will give him 2 more series to come good.
-- RP Singh -- my pick of the bowlers this summer (including the tour of England and the T20 cup). An excellent attitude towards the game, and can move the ball both ways. Also plays his game without the histrionics of a Sreesanth.
-- Robin Uthappa -- great determination and attitude... though sometimes he thinks he can hit every ball out of the park. I think he trusts his instincts, which will hold him well when times are good, but I will wait to see how he copes when his form slips.
-- Dinesh Karthik -- he has a very good future, but might struggle to maintain his place in the team purely as a batsmen. And if Dhoni is captain, he might just continue to be the best 12th man.
My players of the past are:
Ajit Agarkar... seriously it is time for him to go. I am so glad he wasn't picked for the latter games of this tournament. The youngsters showed a lot more aggression and even though they went for runs, they showed a lot more application than Agarkar.
Joginder Sharma ... I think he is too slow and will always bowl too many "hit-me" balls to the batsmen. I still cannot believe how we got away (twice) with Joginder bowling the last over. We just got damn lucky against Pakistan.
Sreesanth ... he blows too hot and too cold too often. I don't know if we can afford his mood swings for any lengthy period.
Last Word:
I am fairly impressed with Dhoni as captain. Though it is a little early to judge, but he obviously has a future. I'd like to see Tendulkar captain the Test team and groom Dhoni for the job. I don't think we have much of an option for captaincy in 1-day or T20 format.
Well played India. And thank you Pakistan for putting on an EXCELLENT performance, that entertained us all!!
My thoughts after watching about 3 games of this tournament, but following the scores closely on cricinfo.com and watching some snippets on youtube.
The format
I believe T20 is here to stay!! This World cup has provided several close matches and I have been very impressed by the quality of cricket that was played throughout the tournament. There were a lot of close matches, and although it sounds to the traditional cricketer as a "wham-bam-thankyou-mam" format, it really isn't and requires a fair amount of skill and planning. I think in the next 2-3 years, this format will replace 1-day cricket. I still hope that Test cricket continues, but I won't mind seeing the natural death of 1-day cricket. 50-over-a-side matches take too long to complete, and overs 15-40 are usually very boring and don't add much value to the game. The "real" 2007 world cup in the Caribbean was probably the most boring sporting event ever -- and not only because India and Pakistan were knocked out very early.
India winning this world cup is probably great for the game and this format. BCCI, in all its endeavors to make as many profits as it possibly can, has steered away from the short format since it is not as lucrative as the 1-day format. The Indian public is willing to sit for a whole day and watch a game, thereby allowing advertisements to be squeezed in between every over. T20 is faster-paced, with not as much room for ads, and I doubt BCCI would give it as much priority had India not done well in this tournament. The Indian win will now force BCCI to look into this format and hopefully schedule a lot more T20 games with touring teams rather than pointless 7-match 1-day series.
The Indian Team
India went into this world cup as underdogs and without their 3 main batting stars - Tendulkar, Dravid, and Ganguly. This was a blessing in disguise, and I am truly amazed at how some of the players stepped up and showed the kind of application, enthusiasm, and aggression that is rarely seen among Indians!
My players for the future are:
-- Rohit Sharma -- very good technique, will turn out to be a great and dependable middle order batsman (watch out Dravid!)
-- Gautam Gambhir -- he has been in and out of the team for a while now, but I think he deserves a permanent place in all formats of the game. I'd rather see him open the innings in Tests ahead of Dinesh Karthik.
-- Irfan Pathan -- now that Greg Chappell has gone for good and stopped screwing up Irfan's brains, I think he has a future, at least in the shorter formats (1-day, T20). He has lost a lot of pace, and will go for many runs in some matches, but he has a very good attitude and deserves to be persisted with.
-- Yusuf Pathan -- too early to say, but obviously he looks promising. I will give him 2 more series to come good.
-- RP Singh -- my pick of the bowlers this summer (including the tour of England and the T20 cup). An excellent attitude towards the game, and can move the ball both ways. Also plays his game without the histrionics of a Sreesanth.
-- Robin Uthappa -- great determination and attitude... though sometimes he thinks he can hit every ball out of the park. I think he trusts his instincts, which will hold him well when times are good, but I will wait to see how he copes when his form slips.
-- Dinesh Karthik -- he has a very good future, but might struggle to maintain his place in the team purely as a batsmen. And if Dhoni is captain, he might just continue to be the best 12th man.
My players of the past are:
Ajit Agarkar... seriously it is time for him to go. I am so glad he wasn't picked for the latter games of this tournament. The youngsters showed a lot more aggression and even though they went for runs, they showed a lot more application than Agarkar.
Joginder Sharma ... I think he is too slow and will always bowl too many "hit-me" balls to the batsmen. I still cannot believe how we got away (twice) with Joginder bowling the last over. We just got damn lucky against Pakistan.
Sreesanth ... he blows too hot and too cold too often. I don't know if we can afford his mood swings for any lengthy period.
Last Word:
I am fairly impressed with Dhoni as captain. Though it is a little early to judge, but he obviously has a future. I'd like to see Tendulkar captain the Test team and groom Dhoni for the job. I don't think we have much of an option for captaincy in 1-day or T20 format.
Well played India. And thank you Pakistan for putting on an EXCELLENT performance, that entertained us all!!
Saturday, July 21, 2007
role of corporate sponsorship in team selection
Just before the world cup started, I remember arguing with my dad about the role of corporate sponsorship and player seniority on team selection. My dad was of the opinion that certain players are selected in the playing 11 because they have lucrative sponsorship deals. This was particularly the case when the captain and senior players were being sponsored by the same corporation. I remember vociferously arguing that the captain and coach (who supposedly decide the playing 11) would not be influenced by sponsorship, but would play the best team for that game.
I am beginning to have second thoughts on my initial "assessment" of the game and the captain's interests. My case in point is selection of MS Dhoni for the first test match between India and England at Lords. I don't see any sane reason to include Dhoni in this side. He hasn't batted well outside of "home" conditions ("home" includes playing in and against Bangladesh), while Dinesh Karthik has been batting very well over the last year or so. Dhoni failed miserably in the World Cup and batted horribly in the 1st innings at Lords -- in all cases got out to very poor shots. Dravid, during the pre-match interview, claimed that "Dhoni has done no wrong to exclude him" -- I beg to differ! More importantly, if we were really choosing a horses-for-courses team, I don't see a place for Dhoni. Karthik is known to have much better and softer hands behind the stumps, and has been batting reasonably well to deserve a place ahead of Dhoni. Then why include Dhoni as well?? Wouldn't it make much more sense to play Yuvraj, a more recognized batsmen, to bolster the middle order, or include Gambhir so that we can have 2 regular openers in the side.
OH! But that would mean dropping Dhoni which would irk those sponsors who have spent millions in making Dhoni a rock-star!
I am beginning to have second thoughts on my initial "assessment" of the game and the captain's interests. My case in point is selection of MS Dhoni for the first test match between India and England at Lords. I don't see any sane reason to include Dhoni in this side. He hasn't batted well outside of "home" conditions ("home" includes playing in and against Bangladesh), while Dinesh Karthik has been batting very well over the last year or so. Dhoni failed miserably in the World Cup and batted horribly in the 1st innings at Lords -- in all cases got out to very poor shots. Dravid, during the pre-match interview, claimed that "Dhoni has done no wrong to exclude him" -- I beg to differ! More importantly, if we were really choosing a horses-for-courses team, I don't see a place for Dhoni. Karthik is known to have much better and softer hands behind the stumps, and has been batting reasonably well to deserve a place ahead of Dhoni. Then why include Dhoni as well?? Wouldn't it make much more sense to play Yuvraj, a more recognized batsmen, to bolster the middle order, or include Gambhir so that we can have 2 regular openers in the side.
OH! But that would mean dropping Dhoni which would irk those sponsors who have spent millions in making Dhoni a rock-star!
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Chappel and Powerpoints
Recent media reports suggest that the BCCI was once again "wowed" by Greg Chappel's hour-long power point presentation during the meeting "suggesting measures to improve Indian cricket". I remember when the 3 candidates (Chappel, Tom Moody, and Mohinder Amarnath) were shortlisted for the post of Indian cricket coach about 2 years ago, each presented their case to the board. Even then, Greg Chappel had impressed the Board with his great powerpoint. The BCCI Board constituted a different "bunch of jokers" then ... :-) that's what Amarnath had called the BCCI when he was dropped from the team in the '80's... did he really expect to get the job?
Everyone was so impressed with Greg's powerpoint that he got the job! I wonder what he puts in those powerpoints. Perhaps some custom animations with fancy slide transitions?!!
I don't doubt Greg's great cricketing brain, etc. but from the very beginning he always occurred to be someone who would be difficult to approach... like the extremely learned school principal who you admire, but cannot really go and talk to. It did not help that the stupid Ganguly was rooting for Greg from the outset... because Greg had showed him how to grip his bat while facing the Ausies... and Gangs had had a very successful tour! Greg's (mis)handling of the Ganguly ouster and his recent alleged altercation with Tendulkar surely don't come across as a man who understands how to coach a passionate Indian cricket team. Coaching the Indian cricket team needs much more than a learned person; I do believe we need someone like John Wright... he may not have been the most admired person, but he had an effective way of managing the team. It is no coincidence that we did pretty well while he was the coach. I gained a lot of respect for John when I heard his commentary during the India matches in the league stage. He has a fantastic cricketing mind, and what was more important was how he narrated his thoughts... it was said in a calm manner with no "airs" or pride. I am sure it was the same when dealing with the Indian cricket team.
We must also realize that in Cricket, and unlike many sports (American Football, Basketball), the coach does not have the same powers as the captain. During the game, it's the captain who makes all the decisions. Now if we had the captain wearing a ear-piece and getting instructions from the coach (like the quarterback in Football) during the game, I would elect a coach like Greg... but until then I would go for someone like Wright.
Let's see how Shastri does... I think he falls between John and Greg. Perhaps that's what we need!
Everyone was so impressed with Greg's powerpoint that he got the job! I wonder what he puts in those powerpoints. Perhaps some custom animations with fancy slide transitions?!!
I don't doubt Greg's great cricketing brain, etc. but from the very beginning he always occurred to be someone who would be difficult to approach... like the extremely learned school principal who you admire, but cannot really go and talk to. It did not help that the stupid Ganguly was rooting for Greg from the outset... because Greg had showed him how to grip his bat while facing the Ausies... and Gangs had had a very successful tour! Greg's (mis)handling of the Ganguly ouster and his recent alleged altercation with Tendulkar surely don't come across as a man who understands how to coach a passionate Indian cricket team. Coaching the Indian cricket team needs much more than a learned person; I do believe we need someone like John Wright... he may not have been the most admired person, but he had an effective way of managing the team. It is no coincidence that we did pretty well while he was the coach. I gained a lot of respect for John when I heard his commentary during the India matches in the league stage. He has a fantastic cricketing mind, and what was more important was how he narrated his thoughts... it was said in a calm manner with no "airs" or pride. I am sure it was the same when dealing with the Indian cricket team.
We must also realize that in Cricket, and unlike many sports (American Football, Basketball), the coach does not have the same powers as the captain. During the game, it's the captain who makes all the decisions. Now if we had the captain wearing a ear-piece and getting instructions from the coach (like the quarterback in Football) during the game, I would elect a coach like Greg... but until then I would go for someone like Wright.
Let's see how Shastri does... I think he falls between John and Greg. Perhaps that's what we need!
BCCI "cracks" down on Indian players
The BCCI just completed it's much-publicized meeting after the unceremonious exit of the Indian team from the World Cup. My personal reactions:
1) Nice to see that they hired Ravi Shastri as the Cricket Manager / Interim Coach. Shastri has the relevant experience and is able to communicate effectively. He also holds a fair amount of respect within the Indian cricket team. They have gone to him for advise in the past (the now-abolished contract system was ably supported by Shastri). I do hope Shastri, Venkatesh Prasad (bowling coach) and Robin Singh (fielding coach) interact closely with each other to improve the overall standards of the current team with an eye on upcoming youngsters in the domestic circuit.
2) I am not so sure if limiting the number of endorsements (to 3) is a good idea, nor am I sure it is legal, especially after the BCCI terminated the contract system. The players will now get paid for each match they play, with a bonus if they win. This means that they will not be employed by the BCCI for the entire year, or at least will not be paid for the entire year. In which case, how can the board restrict the players from making financial gains outside of their cricketing commitments.
I don't think the players are going to argue too much now... but after winning a series or two, I am sure things will change.
If the players don't perform well, they will automatically lose their popularity, and will not be on any TV ads and getting such lucrative offers. That's how one would expect it to work... or atleas I hope!
1) Nice to see that they hired Ravi Shastri as the Cricket Manager / Interim Coach. Shastri has the relevant experience and is able to communicate effectively. He also holds a fair amount of respect within the Indian cricket team. They have gone to him for advise in the past (the now-abolished contract system was ably supported by Shastri). I do hope Shastri, Venkatesh Prasad (bowling coach) and Robin Singh (fielding coach) interact closely with each other to improve the overall standards of the current team with an eye on upcoming youngsters in the domestic circuit.
2) I am not so sure if limiting the number of endorsements (to 3) is a good idea, nor am I sure it is legal, especially after the BCCI terminated the contract system. The players will now get paid for each match they play, with a bonus if they win. This means that they will not be employed by the BCCI for the entire year, or at least will not be paid for the entire year. In which case, how can the board restrict the players from making financial gains outside of their cricketing commitments.
How can you limit what the player does if you don't set up a contract with him? I can understand if there is a conflict of interest, but what happens when the player is not selected for a particular series or is in between two series. I understand the "clause" that suggests that players cannot be endorsing products just prior to a series, but is it legal to disallow a player from doing something else when he is not working for the BCCI?The subject of player earnings appeared to be the main focus of the meeting, and it was decided to replace the system of graded contracts with a standard fee for all, and additional bonuses for series wins. However, no figures were mentioned in this regard. This effectively means that seniors and juniors all earn the same, the difference being in what they earn from endorsements.
There, too, the board has cracked down: eEach player will be allowed a maximum of three endorsements a year but will not be allowed to shoot any commercials up to two weeks prior to any series. Also, not more than two players can endorse the same product. However, Srinivasan stressed that these were decisions taken looking ahead, as a plan for the future.
I don't think the players are going to argue too much now... but after winning a series or two, I am sure things will change.
If the players don't perform well, they will automatically lose their popularity, and will not be on any TV ads and getting such lucrative offers. That's how one would expect it to work... or atleas I hope!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)