 |
|
| SPORT TRIBUNE | Saturday, May 6, 2000, Chandigarh, India |
Mumbai ride on Sachin’s batting By Gopal Sharma Sachin Tendulkar, as only he can, kept his word and played a major role in Mumbai winning the Ranji Trophy for the 34th time beating Hyderabad in the final. The inimitable Tendulkar after he was free from his taxing international schedule had apprised the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) of his desire to play in the semifinal match against Tamil Nadu. The MCA wasted no time and had the crucial match postponed by two days. What transpired next is history now. The
Chandrachud report French
Open: toughest Grand Slam
|
|
Mumbai ride on Sachin’s
batting Sachin Tendulkar, as only he can, kept his word and played a major role in Mumbai winning the Ranji Trophy for the 34th time beating Hyderabad in the final. The inimitable Tendulkar after he was free from his taxing international schedule had apprised the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) of his desire to play in the semifinal match against Tamil Nadu. The MCA wasted no time and had the crucial match postponed by two days. What transpired next is history now. Tamil Nadu batting first were going strong as left-handed Hemang Badani and India one-day specialist Robin Singh were in full cry and notched up 162 and 185 not out, respectively, as Tamil Nadu scored 485 in their first innings. In reply to this big total, the Mumbai batsmen, though looking impressive, kept on losing wickets at regular intervals and no big partnership developed. But an unflappable Tendulkar brought all his batting skills to the fore and with a mix of aggression and caution guided Mumbai through the choppy waters for a berth in the final. And by the time the play ended the maestro was undefeated on 233, his best first class score. By his own admission this was by for the best innings played by the former Indian skipper. In the final also Tendulkar was not found lagging. He hit a scintillating 128 in the second innings as Mumbai clinched the trophy after a gap of two years.Incidentally, Mumbai had failed to enter the super league stage last year. And Hyderabad’s horrendous run against the champion outfit continued as they slumped to their ninth defeat in as many outings facing Mumbai in the national championship! Tendulkar’s heroics apart, this edition of the championship bears the indelible mark of the excellence shown by Hyderabad’s; V.V.S. Laxman. Stylish Laxman’s hunger for runs remained unsatiated as a match after match he continued to dish out the most fascinating display of batsmanship. Laxman scored 1415 runs with the help of stunning eight centuries — both new records — from nine matches during the championship, overtaking Vijay Bhardwaj who had 1280 runs to his credit with the help of four centuries. The irresistible Laxman began with 131 versus Goa and 104 against Andhra Pradesh in the league matches. Continuing in the same vein he hit 119 and 109 against Bihar and Railways, respectively, in the super league matches. The former India opener was in even better form afterwards, tormenting the hapless Uttar Pradesh bowling attack and scoring 128 and 177 not out in two innings in the crucial knockout match at Kanpur. But the knock which catapulted him into the exclusive club was an epochal 353 against the quality Karnataka attack at Bangalore. Laxman in the process became the only player to have two triple centuries in the national championship under his belt having earlier scored an unbeaten 301 against Bihar in 1997-98. Laxman also played his part in the final as he made 111 versus Mumbai. Pankaj Dharmani of Punjab also was in ominous touch almost throughout the championship.He also joined the elite group of cricketers when he frustrated the Jammu and Kashmir bowling attack and scored an unbeaten 305 in the league match at Ludhiana. Dharmani amassed 863 runs from 10 matches at 66 plus average and along with skipper Vikram Rathore, Dinesh Mongia and young opener Ravneet Ricky played a major role in Punjab reaching the quarterfinal. An interesting aspect of this year’s edition was that three teams —Hyderabad, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — from the same zone—South Zone — entered the semifinal. Fortytwo-year-old off-spinner Kanwaljit Singh, also from Hyderabad, proved that age does not have much significance if one has the skill and the drive to perform. The veteran office remained the scourge of batsmen to be the most successful bowler with a rich haul of 62 wickets, falling short of spin wizard Bishan Singh Bedi’s record of 64 wickets in 1974-75. The off-spinner received perhaps the best compliment possible for all the hard work he has done over the years when former skipper Mohammad Azharuddin commented that Kanwaljit was good enough to play for the country provided he worked on his fitness and fielding. Rajesh Pawar, a diminutive left-arm spinner, acquitted himself well, particularly in the final, finishing with a match haul of 10 for 147 prompting team coach Ashok Mankad to state that the bowler was almost ready to don India colours.Pawar had represented India in the Junior World Cup in South Africa nearly four years ago. How much the
country’s top stars care for the national
championship matches was evident from the fact that Rahul
Dravid and Anil Kumble preferred to skip the important
semifinal match and go to England to play county cricket
with the result that Karnataka players who had been at
the victory podium during the past two successive years
were shown the door by a determined Hyderabad. |
The Chandrachud report I AM calling it a report because it is nothing more than a report, usually done by secretaries to executives, when they jot down minutes of meetings. The words of the ‘celebrities’ are quoted verbatim, without any attempt being made to probe further, to check the veracity of these statements. There is, further, no independent thought put in by the reporter, but merely a summation of the quotes dished out by the celebrities. Some journalists refused to toe that line, and argued that match-fixing was in fact rife. But the jurist says “that some journalists had argued a case for match-fixing; that he thought they were basically good people motivated by a love for the game, but that they didn’t know, poor fellows, what they were talking about.” In fact it can be termed as “Fixing Manoj Prabhakar” report, because the whole objective seems to be to shut Manoj Prabhakar up. He ends, that Manoj remains friendless thereafter. Sure Manoj remains friendless in the cricketing fraternity, because the rest don’t want to rub the wrong side of the powers that be that patronise betting. So they keep a safe distance from the “frustrated cricketer”. Prabhakar told the jurist: “I remember the incident at Sharjah when Aamir Sohail and Azhar went out to toss and both came back claiming that the other had won it.” As per the jurist, “the incident mentioned in clause (g) shows Manoj’s total unconcern for truth. Aamir Sohail and Azhar were never captains of their teams at the same time or in any match whatsoever. They never tossed together. Azhar tossed with Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Moin Khan but never with Amir Sohail.” In the 1996 World Cup quarterfinal between India and Pakistan played in Bangalore, Aamir Sohail took over the captaincy after Akram dropped out with an injured shoulder, and walked out with Azharuddin to toss. On April 5, 1996, at the Padang Cricket Ground in Singapore, Aamir Sohail and Mohammad Azharuddin led their respective sides, and tossed. On April 12, 1996, Mohammad Azharuddin and Aamir Sohail walked out to toss, at the Sharjah Stadium. And again, three days later, on April 15, 1996. So can we now turn around and write a report on his report, wherein we say: ‘Justice Chandrachud, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, chairing a committee asked to probe a serious allegation, “lied” when he says that Mohammad Azharuddin and Aamir Sohail have never tossed together, when in truth the two have performed that function, at the head of their respective teams, on several occasions’? Sure we can. Another statement Manoj Prabhakar made, and the jurist quotes: “I distinctly remember the match at Sharjah in 1991 when I was at the crease with Sanjay Manjrekar, when we decided to walk off because of failing light. To our surprise we received the signal from the team management to play on.” And Chandrachud says: “The incident mentioned in clause (a) above is falsified by the statement of Sanjay Manjrekar, which I accept as true. He says that the match at Sharjah against Pakistan in October, 1991, started late. He and Manoj Prabhakar were on the right path when the umpire said that the light was bad. There was only a brief stoppage in the game. Manjrekar has stated categorically that he and Manoj did not go back to the pavilion and the statement made by Manoj Prabhakar is wholly untrue. Manjrekar’s statement accords with the probabilities of the case.” I am sure it does for Chandrachud. To support his efforts to whitewash his arguments against Prabhakar the eminent jurist quotes Sanjay Manjrekar who says, merely, that they did not return to the pavilion. But where does Manoj Prabhakar say they did? His statement is very clear — we decided to walk off because of bad light, but to our surprise we received a signal... to play on. Nowhere does Prabhakar say that the two of them returned to the pavilion — in fact, he clearly indicates that while the batsmen decided to, they were waved back onto the field of play. And what does Manjrekar say? That the players did not return to the pavilion. How does Manjrekar’s statement make Prabhakar a liar? In Manjrekar’s own words: “Our match at Sharjah against Pakistan in October 1991 started late. We were on the right path when the umpire said that the light was bad. There was a brief stoppage. But it is untrue that Manoj Prabhakar and I went to the pavilion. Ashok Mankad was the manager of the team.” The truth is this: Pakistan batted first and made 257. In response, Shastri and Kambli put on an opening partnership of 124 at a rate better than four an over. Then came three quick wickets, including that of Azhar bowled by Akram Raza for nought. Then came a partnership between Manjrekar and Tendulkar, that took India to 219, just 39 short of a win, before Tendulkar (49 off 38 balls), and Kapil (0), fell off successive balls. And then the light, which was deteriorating rapidly all along, failed completely. What followed was confusion. Had play been called off at that point, in over number 44, India would have won on the basis of superior run rate. The umpires however, after a brief stoppage in play during which they consulted with the organisers, asked the Indians to bat on. After the match, the last six overs of which were played in such bad light that one could see dazzling street lights, the umpires claimed the Indians had never appealed for light. Both Manjrekar and Prabhakar said that they had in fact appealed, and that the umpires said they were not sure of the rules and asked them to bat on. India lost, from a winning position. Who took the decision to continue the game in light that was obviously unsuitable? Why? And here is the icing on the cake. These are the words of Ashok Mankad, the manager for the game in question, when he spoke to the commission: “The Sharjah match of which he speaks did not take place at all. Besides, it was an inconsequential match since India had reached the final.” The match did not take place at all! Both players agree the match did take place, and the manager says not at first, then adds, besides, it was inconsequential?! Now let us look at it from Pakistan’s point of view to see if the match was inconsequential or not. India had already qualified for the final. Pakistan needed to play that game to qualify for the final. Besides, what has the consequentiality or otherwise of a game to do with it? Is it Mankad’s, or Chandrachud’s contention that people bet only on consequential matches? Raj Singh Dungarpur,described by the entire cricketing fraternity in India as the ever so affable person although I do not know for what, says, “Mr. Chandrachud will be provided with secretarial assistance and other facilities to enable him to conduct the enquiry officiously.” In Chandrachud’s own words in his ‘report’: “During the course of my inquiry, I interviewed past and present members of the Indian cricket team. Managers of the team, physiotherapists of the team and certain journalists. I took down in my own hand the statements made before me by the players, the managers, the physiotherapist, and two journalists — Mr. Krishna Prasad and Mr Makarand Waigankar. The statements of the others, mostly journalists, were dictated by me in their presence to my personal secretary who typed them out in their presence. A few of them, just a few suggested minor changes in what I had dictated. Those changes were forthwith incorporated in their statements.” Note the point “I took down in my own hand....” Given the way the report has shaped, you have to ask — why? Why were the statements of the players and managers taken down by the jurist himself, when there was a secretary present and deputed to do that job? An obvious conclusion you cannot help but draw is, that this meant the jurist could keep out anything that was not convenient, since there was no third person, in the form of a secretary, to keep track of what was said and what was taken down. Here is the final damnation: “I have no hesitation in rejecting the allegations made by Manoj Prabhakar. They are imaginary and unrealistic. The question naturally arises as to why he should have resorted to tactics like these. The answer is provided by his own peers. According to them Manoj lost his equipoise because firstly, to quote his own words, he was” thrown out of the Indian team. “That deprived him of the opportunity to make handsome gains by the use of his unquestioned cricketing talents. Secondly, he was then discarded by his own home team the Delhi District Cricket Association. That definitely unhinged him because, having been a hero of the crowds for quite some years, he was relegated into oblivion. From the admiring eyes of countless fans to a dark room is a fall too big to bear even for the most philosophical. He then tried to open a new leaf in his life by contesting an election to parliament. He rushed in where angels fear to tread and lost his wicket like a tailender. That was the last straw which broke the brave back.” Can we say Chandrachud calls Prabhakar a mentally unbalanced liar. Can we turn around and say that the jurist, once the highest judge in the land, the darling of the legal fraternity, went into oblivion after he quit that job, and ‘this was the last straw that broke that brave back’ which made him write that really silly ‘report’? In the days prior to the release of the report, in the headlines that blazed across the front pages of the media were the words of Chandrachud ‘Why’ he repeatedly demanded, ‘is my report not being tabled in Parliament?’ ‘Why is my report not being made public, so the people can see for themselves?’ so on, and so forth. Now that we have seen the ‘report’, it raises more questions than it sets out to answer; questions that deserve to be answered by the jurist himself, who says ‘In the best traditions of judicial functioning, I have decided not to comment’. I am puzzled most particularly about the Sohail-Azhar toss issue. While many people will not remember every match, how can everyone forget the quarter final at Bangalore in the 1996 World Cup? That was one game Sohail led for Pakistan, and Azhar went out to toss with him and this game cannot be forgotten by anyone. I am wondering how this silly report of Chandrachud has been left untouched. I am also wondering why Prabhakar kept quiet after all those damning adjectives foisted on him by the former Chief Justice. In fact, I would recommend Prabhakar take this jurist to court on the glaring mistakes that he has made contrary to facts in his reporting, like the Sohail-Azhar toss issue. At least the truth has
started to show out now. This is the hour when we all
should show our faith in law and help all those who can
come out clean, to bring all of it out. That may even
mean calling the friendless Prabhakar and telling him to
let it go all over again. And when the truth comes out,
Justice Chandrachud should be the first person who has to
be investigated upon, because, I now doubt his integrity.
The rest of the crows can be dealt with latter. |
French Open: toughest Grand
Slam “The French Open is the world’s most demanding tennis event played on red clay which takes long hours of endless rallies and tremendous mental and physical toughness,” remarked Vijay Amrithraj, the former Indian Davis Cupper, while doing commentary for the event a couple of years ago. How succinctly had Amrithraj summed up the championship, which quite easily qualifies as the toughest Grand Slam tournament. The scenario for the spectators at the French Open starting on May 8, 2000 would also be no different. While the players may find the going tough down in the middle with four-hour marathons, involving hundreds of long top spin rallies from the baselines, the spectators would first jostle with each other to get to the courts and then as is their wont, move from their seats whenever they want with little regard to the ongoing matches. After all, that is the French crowd and they have their own unique way of treating their star performers. Cars are waiting for players, special hotels booked, parties and receptions, dinners and banquets thrown, awards are given and, of course, a great deal of business is done by agents, sponsors, managers, coaches and trainers. The organisers, on their part, also offer the best of facilities at the venue. Special ultramodern multipurpose gyms, changing rooms, excellent massages and washing and bathing facilities, practice courts, top class restaurants and rest rooms are there for the benefit of the participants. For the players it is the ultimate test and specialists rule the roost at Roland Garros. Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Carlos Moya, Magnus Norman, Gustavo Kuerten and Alex Corretia will be among the frontline favourites. World No 1 Agassi, on his current form, can start as the strongest contender for any tournament. But with his powerful baseline game, the defending champion should find it easier to adjust tot he slow clay courts much faster than the other players. The hard-hitting Spaniard, Moya, who won the title here in 1998 would be the player to watch out for. After grappling with an injury for nearly six months, he is now back to his top form and fitness, following recent victories over Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marc Rosset and Tommy Haas. Moya returned to the circuit this season to play trio of America tournaments before really coming back with a bang by winning on clay Estoril — his first title since his triumph at Roland Garros exactly two years ago. At Roland Garros this year, once again he will be a major threat to players like Agassi and Kuerten. The Brazilian, Kuerten has always thrived on clay. With his distinctive style suited to this surface, Kuerten would be looking to pocket his second French Open title. Besides the clay court specialists, Pete Sampras, who has now slipped to No 3 in the rankings, would be keen to go for the kill at French open — the only Grand Slam that has eluded the legendary American. In the women’s section, though there may not be many contenders for the title, yet the interest among top five to six players would be at its peak. Martina Hingis clearly enjoys an edge over others. The world No 2 Swiss player won the 1999 French Open in style to prove that she relishes the surface here. Among Hingis strong
challengers would include Monica Seles, current No. 1
Lindsay Davenport, Anna Kournikova and the
ever-enthusiastic Serena Williams. Mary Pierce’s
show at the French Open would also be of special interest
to her fans after her remarkable comeback performances
this year. |
sm
Electronic media promoting cricket THESE days one can hear discussions on match-fixing at all public places. About 50 years ago people living in villages had not heard about cricket. Even in urban areas, other games such as football, basketball, volleyball and hockey were prominent and the masses had little interest in cricket. Cricket was considered the game of the affluent class. Cricket is a time consuming game and hence developed countries like the USA, who understand the value of time, do not have any interest in this game. Due to commercialisation of this game, radio and TV are devoting more time to cricket at the cost of other games. Football, basketball, volleyball, hockey, boxing, swimming and kabaddi do not get any priority on the electronic media. We get news of these games only through newspapers. The Olympics are due this year and I hope the electronic media devotes maximum time to those games in which our teams are participating. Cricket should not be imposed on the public. Arjun S. Chhetri Hockey victory It was really pleasing to see the Indian hockey team winning the Four-Nation Tournament in Australia. They have improved their game a lot. But this victory is also due to the return of some senior players in the team, who were ignored and badly treated after the Asiad by the IHF. To get better results, players must be given better facilities. Balwant Guleria II Kudos to the Indian hockey team for winning the four-nation hockey title. After a disappointing year, the Indian Olympic campaign got a shot in the arm when our team defeated Germany in the final. It was due to Pillay’s brilliant performance that India won the trophy. Once again congratulations to Ramandeep’s team. Jivesh Mittal Match-fixing The monster of match-fixing is all set to annihilate the game of cricket. Smoke rises when there is fire. The case of Hansie Cronje has stunned the cricketing world. If stars like Cronje become victims of the underworld mafia, it may just be the tip of the iceberg. If impartial and thorough investigations are carried out many skeletons will be found in the cupboards of the cricket boards. Those at the helm of cricket affairs do not appear to be sacred cows. What was once a gentleman’s game is now a bookie’s paradise. Karnail Singh
|
 |
|
