Gavaskar on the Broads

[Sanz]

It would definitely be a conflict of interest if Chris Broad officiated in a match in which Stuart Broad was playing.

I am not so sure about this. I tend to think even when they are not involved in a match together, it is a conflict of interest.

 

[Sanz]

Its easy to get carried away when one's idol's or one's country are perceived (not always rightly) to be under fire. I am an Indian like others on this forum and a proclaimed fan of Gavaskar. This, however, does not mean I have to agree or defend everything he says or consider it my 'patriotic' duty to do so every time an Indian icon is criticised.

One can agree with what Gavaskar is saying and yet disagree with his way of putting things across. Then again, just because one disagrees with somethings he says does not mean one must disagree with everything he says or vice versa.

Here are two examples from just one piece by the Little Master written after the Harbhajan-Symonds fiasco.

1. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark. Bias apparent. MILLIONS OF Indians want to know if it was a 'white man' taking the 'white man's' word against that of the 'brown man'​

Now. If Gavaskar had criticised Proctor for his decision to take one man's word against the other, no one could have had any complaints. By talking of a white man's word against a brown man, he is deliberately being provocative. You can't say such things without any evidence to back you up. Using the Indian public and saying that it is "incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one", he isn't getting much more than a fig leaf to protect himself against the kind of charge ICC finally confronted him with.

Then again he wrote. . .

2. "Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalise only one or it could be up against a racist charge too.

Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?"​

What kind of support does he have to bolster his case that ICC was treating a black man's errors more strictly than a white man's? Does this not look like at least pandering to parochial sentiments at home (and in the wider cricketing audience of a certain ethnicity) or worse? If he goes about affixing racist tags so indiscriminately would some in the audience not be justified in looking at his motivations with concern?

Its actually true that in most cases where Bedi and Gavaskar have taken a stance, I have been in agreement with them on the cricketing issue concerned but as someone said of Bedi, "he believes in not calling a spade a spade but a bloody frigging shovel." Gavaskar does not use Bedi's colourful language but he makes equally strong charges which are not lightly to be made.

I am sorry, I may be old fashioned but I do not agree with that particularly when done in the public space. Gavaskar has enough fora to speak on where all those who matter in the game will listen rapturously and hang to his every word but an afternoon rag like Mid-Day panders to just the kind of sentiments that senior citizens of the game need to avoid provoking.

That there may be those in media across the world who may have done exactly that is no justification for responding in kind.

Okay I said what I had to say and that is that

This has nothing to do with the current comment made by Gavaskar. Please stop bull****ting.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Its easy to get carried away when one's idol's or one's country are perceived (not always rightly) to be under fire. I am an Indian like others on this forum and a proclaimed fan of Gavaskar. This, however, does not mean I have to agree or defend everything he says or consider it my 'patriotic' duty to do so every time an Indian icon is criticised.

One can agree with what Gavaskar is saying and yet disagree with his way of putting things across. Then again, just because one disagrees with somethings he says does not mean one must disagree with everything he says or vice versa.

Yes, but you've got to disagree with it for the right reasons, not merely as an extension of an opinion you've formed of him based on his comments in the past. You'd be right in disagreeing with his charges of nepotism, the racism angle was completely uncalled for. Leave the talk about patriotic duties and defence of national icons to the politicians, don't bring that nonsense here when that clearly isn't the issue.

 

[Bouncer]

Its easy to get carried away when one's idol's or one's country are perceived (not always rightly) to be under fire. I am an Indian like others on this forum and a proclaimed fan of Gavaskar. This, however, does not mean I have to agree or defend everything he says or consider it my 'patriotic' duty to do so every time an Indian icon is criticised.

Its a very non Indian trait sir jee and i bet there are people who do not admire that.

Its sad when you come across people who, while talking about one thing they really love and admire ( like cricket), still have to wear masks to go down to levels that are just wrong...to talk about something they really love...Oh well, such people exist and to me they make people like yourself and other (who love the game) even more precious.

 

[GIMH]

I am not so sure about this. I tend to think even when they are not involved in a match together, it is a conflict of interest.

You bloody would wouldn't you

 

[Sanz]

Yes, the industry I work in it is a conflict of interest.

 

[GIMH]

I love you Sanz, happy new year

 

[NUFAN]

In Rugby League Melbourne Storm's five eight Brett Finch is the son of the referees boss.

Actually that's not the best example, BFinch is a bit of a **** and Melbourne did just win the Premiership.

 

[Sanz]

I love you Sanz, happy new year

I know it when you are drunk. Happy new year to you too mate.

 

[zaremba]

Sunny, get your head out of your arse, son.

Spot on. Gavaskar has a truly awe-inspiring ability to spout complete claptrap.

 

[Jono]

For the people disagreeing with Sunil Gavaskar (and fair enough), are you going to add why you think Broad has not been treated differently?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

For the people disagreeing with Sunil Gavaskar (and fair enough), are you going to add why you think Broad has not been treated differently?

Can't prove a negative. Burden of proof is on those who think Broad has been treated differently.

 

[Jono]

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

That he hasn't been punished when perhaps he should have? Gavaskar said he should have been punished in the recent test... do others agree?

There's no doubt Broad has pushed the boundaries at times with his behaviour, and many have noted it. Not just Gavaskar.

 

[Streetwise]

I remember one incident with Broad and Ganguly, Ganguly was summoned by Broad to explain why he didnt complete his overs for the day. Ganguly for whatever reason decided that he did not want to explain himself to Broad and refused to attend. Broad of course took offence to this gesture and gave Ganguly the highest punishment to which there were cries of bias against India.

 

[Jono]

Ok.

 

[Sanz]

So how does Ganguly come into this discussion ? And at least get your story right.

 

[honestbharani]

I remember one incident with Broad and Ganguly, Ganguly was summoned by Broad to explain why he didnt complete his overs for the day. Ganguly for whatever reason decided that he did not want to explain himself to Broad and refused to attend. Broad of course took offence to this gesture and gave Ganguly the highest punishment to which there were cries of bias against India.

proof or links??????

 

[bagapath]

I remember one incident with Broad and Ganguly, Ganguly was summoned by Broad to explain why he didnt complete his overs for the day. Ganguly for whatever reason decided that he did not want to explain himself to Broad and refused to attend. Broad of course took offence to this gesture and gave Ganguly the highest punishment to which there were cries of bias against India.

this must be one of the most interesting posts of the year if it were not a blatant lie.

 

[GIMH]

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

That he hasn't been punished when perhaps he should have? Gavaskar said he should have been punished in the recent test... do others agree?

There's no doubt Broad has pushed the boundaries at times with his behaviour, and many have noted it. Not just Gavaskar.

I could have sworn I've read of instances of Broad being fined a portion of his match fee, but I can't find anything on the web in all honesty.

 

[honestbharani]

I could have sworn I've read of instances of Broad being fined a portion of his match fee, but I can't find anything on the web in all honesty.

I honestly think that he is being let off easier than others for most infringements... Not sure if it can be proven subjectively but there have been times when I have felt that way.