The Hindu Business Line : <I>Value for money </I>

The uproar over what the Indian cricket coach, Greg Chapell, said about MPs' public comments on the team's abysmal performance in South Africa can be said to be a perfect example of the adage `much ado about nothing'. In fact, the entire episode hinges on one's interpretation of what the coach meant when he said, "I am not surprised. They (the MPs) are paid to do so". Clearly, the offending four-letter word here is `paid', something which has taken on a larger-than-life role because of the `sting operation' sometime back which got a handful of MPs enmeshed in a sordid situation. Here, however, cricket is involved, and a priori there cannot be any question whatever of any insinuation that filthy lucre changed hands to generate criticism of the team's performance.

Confusing haze

This point has to be got out of the way first to clear the field of any confusing haze before one can focus on whether Greg Chapell himself is doing his job — for which he is `paid' — properly and, secondly, whether the scale of `payment' made to the Indian cricketers is justified in view of the sense of disappointment and agony they are spreading by not justifying their donning of the national colour.

As someone said, Chapell is being `paid' as part of a time-barred contract for coaching the Indian cricket team and that, whether he has succeeded or failed in his job can be evaluated fairly only after the contract ends with the next World Cup. Having said this, the point can be made that, as far as the ongoing South African tour is concerned, Chapell has not been able to deliver — and since one is `paid' to do a job (successfully), the payment made to the Indian cricket team coach (as far as the South African tour is concerned) has not been justified. Taking a cue from this, Chapell's comment vis-à-vis criticism by MPs can be turned on its head by suggesting that the coach has not been doing his job — for which he is being paid — as far as the South African tour is concerned!

Players' accountability

What about the cricketers themselves, who have been paid lakhs of rupees per match for representing the country on the cricket field and who have made crores of rupees by encashing their popularity as members of the Indian cricket team through private sponsorships? Have these young men, who have been paid handsomely by the country's cricket administration, justified the `payment' through their on-field performance (during the ongoing South African tour?) Briefly, they have not, and if so, should they not make way for the scores of other equally talented youngsters waiting on the sidelines to don the national colour — and also to make their pile?

It will be argued that, in sport, there are ups and downs and that, because it is sport, the flipside of success should be taken in the right spirit. A good player can lose for a variety of reasons, but on average, over time, he will stand out from amongst a crowd of not-so-good compatriots. This is easily accepted because it is common sense. But what if the monetary stakes are as high as they are in India's top-flight cricketing world? Should this rule apply in equal measure as in club or zonal cricket, or should consistency as a successful player in the national team be given a much higher weightage, the inference being that you should stop getting paid at the level you are getting paid if you fail once too often?

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

More Stories on : Sports | View Point | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Cash in and carry the day?

Auto industry: Asia on fast track

Elementary education: Far from standard

Sixth Pay Commission — More of the previous panel?

Single regulator can complement finance sector reforms

Value for money

Insensitivity of India's officialdom

Learning from the West

Sugar industry