Fusion
Global Moderator
Love him or hate him, SRK is the owner of the team. If he doesn’t have a problem with it, why should Gavaskar?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kolkata to have multiple captains
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
In that case, nobody in the world has a right to criticise any team, because someone is that team's owner.
Fusion
Global Moderator
You can criticize the team’s owners for their decision in regard to the hiring/firing of team personnel as it relates to the performance of the team. If SRK is comfortable with Buchanan hiring his son, then why does anyone have a problem with it? SRK is the one paying the salary. Now if Buchanan’s son does something that negatively impacts the team, then go ahead and flame him (and I’ll join you). But if the only reason that Gavaskar is criticizing this hire is because he perceives it to be nepotism of some sort, then it’s unfair.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
That doesn't mean he has no right to bring it up. Its like saying that the BCCI officials have no objection to Niranjan Shah's son getting an IPL contract, so we shouldn't talk about it.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think Indian cricket belongs to the grouchy group of corrupt officials who run the show, though.
Legally and unfortunately yes.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
I thought you'd have been more familiar with Indian cricket than that
Indian cricket belongs to a private registered trust and to anyone who happens to be in control of it. The BCCI were even taken to court by some party on taxation issues, and the BCCI argued that they weren't obliged to pay those taxes on the basis that the team they fielded represented the BCCI, not India. So technically, if Gavaskar isn't allowed to poke his nose into the affairs of the KKR, we're not allowed to bash the performances of the BCCI cricket team, and the body that controls it.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Yea, they want it both ways. Officially, the team does not represent India, but the organization BCCI, and yet they want tax-exemption for things like the IPL.
And they usually get it, because generally politicians are part of the BCCI setup. It's a nice way to earn a little on the side. And by little, I mean millions.
And they usually get it, because generally politicians are part of the BCCI setup. It's a nice way to earn a little on the side. And by little, I mean millions.
Fusion
Global Moderator
My point is that as a fan/observer/media person, Gavaskar has every right to complain about a team that is being run incompetently. But if an owner of a team makes hiring decisions that haven’t been detrimental to a team’s success, then we have no business criticizing them for it. If John Buchanan hires his entire family with SRK’s approval, and keeps the team successful, then let him! The owner is the one issuing the checks. If you as a fan think that’s nepotism than you have a right to boycott the team and not follow them anymore. And there’s no comparisons of the KKR’s to the BCCI. However much the BCCI contends it is a private institution, it represents India in world cricket. So there’s definitely a case of closer scrutiny in their hiring decisions because theoretically they have to answer to everyone in India, while the KR’s ultimately have to answer to only one: SRK.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Well, KKR is supposed to represent Kolkata, so they're answerable to Kolkata fans like the BCCI is supposed to be answerable to Indian fans. If SRK thinks he's answerable to no one, he might as well drop the charade of the Knight Riders being the Kolkata Knight Riders. He can't claim a fan base if thinks his methods are beyond reproach.
Fusion
Global Moderator
We’re going around in circles so I’ll try end with this: KKR are a private club. They need the Kolkata fans to be successful so of course they will try to please them. However in theory if SRK had unlimited amount of money and didn’t give a damn about the fans showing up, he could field his own family as the XI with himself as the captain and there’s nothing one could do about it (besides stop following the team). It’s a private team! The BCCI are different. They represent India in the International stage. There is no other Indian team that can compete with the Indian flag on their shirts at ICC events. So if a bunch of maniacal board members took over the BCCI, there will be a rather public repercussion. The board members will be voted out and new ones voted in. All this is moot to the original point though because I still don’t see why should Gavaskar criticize Buchanan hiring his son. What indication or proof does he have that this is a bad hire?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Not true, they are directly affiliated with the BCCI, it's not an entirely private club. For example, they can only pick players the BCCI makes available. BCCI are responsible for scheduling, the structure (umpires, etc). It's more like a semi-private subset of the BCCI.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Yes, theoretically BCCI do represent India on the inetrnational stage, but they're legally as private a body as the KKR are, in fact even more so. They are not bound by rules regarding player selection for instance, while KKR are bound by IPL rules. You are correct in saying that there is no other Indian team that can compete with the BCCI selected team, but the same holds true for KKR too! There is no other Kolkata team that can compete with them in the IPL. There is a maniacal bunch of members BCCI that place monetary gain over cricketing matters that require more attention, like the state of stadia and grounds in the country. But where are the repurcussions? There certainly need to be some, but there are none. Anyway one can't use potential repercussions as a yardstick to measure how much someone can get away with in the first place. You could get away with being a rapist in Saudi Arabia due to the inane requirement of witnesses, while you might pay big time in New Zealand. The fact that there are fewer repercussions for rapists in SA doesn't justify their actions any more than it does the NZer's.
As for Buchanan's son, the onus lies on him to demonstrate that he possesses a track record that justifies his hiring ahead of other contenders. You do not walk into an interview and demand to be hired on the basis that there exists no proof or indication that you are a bad hire. Instead you convince them why you would be an asset. Thats the way the hiring process works. Teams sign up players and staff for certain reasons. They either possess a good track record of proven success or significant attributes that are indicators of future success more often than not. What qualifications does he hold that have necessitated his hiring ahead of other candidates? What is his track record? I can't believe you're kicking up a fuss over a simple matter of one person raising questions of another person. They're words. Big deal. Happens day in and day out on this forum on a wide range of issues. Buchanan may either choose to furnish proof of his son's credentials or ignore the matter completely as he is entitled to if KKR is indeed as private an entity as made out to be. If he keeps silent, there's going to be a group of people who'll dismiss the matter and there's going to be a group of people who'll think nepotism. Thats all there is to it. At the end of the day his son is still going to get his pay packet, and SRK will have nursed a bruised ego over the fact that someone dared to suggest, rightly or wrongly, that he was being taken for a ride.
That is, my friend, the debatable part.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Michael Buchanan isn't the worst Twenty20 player going about. Rubbish in other forms though.
Craig
World Traveller
The multi-captain thing is not a new thing here, a few sports teams (in different codes) have it. Personally I think it is a load of bullocks, you have a captain and a vice captain and go from there. Obviously if they are out, it comes down to leadership qualites/experience.
Sounds like kids sport where everybody has a go at being captain.
Sounds like kids sport where everybody has a go at being captain.
Er...
Going by this page --- Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Michael Buchanan,
He averages 15 @ 128 in 5 T20s. I wouldn't say those are IPL worthy for an International player.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
How is his record as a player in any way relevant?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Combining the fact that he comes in reasonably low, plus he's a very good fieldsman, and there's value there as a Twenty20 player.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
He's not joined KKR as a player. He's apparently a 'strength trainer'. Not good enough to bag a player contract, so daddy gets him a paycheck as backroom staff.