Anil Kumble felt he was treated “unfairly” and was forced to resign as the head coach of the Indian team, but then-captain Virat Kohli said his “horror” style of applying player discipline Were not happy with it, as said by Vinod, the head of the former committee of administrators. opinion. In his recently published book ‘Not Just a Nightwatchman: My Innings with BCCI’, published by Roopa, Rai spoke on various issues during his 33-month tenure. One of the issues, and perhaps the most controversial, came when Kohli complained about the break-up of his ties with Kumble, who publicly announced his resignation in 2017 just after the Champions Trophy.
Kumble was given a one-year contract in 2016.
Rai wrote in his book, “In my conversations with the captain and the team management, it was pointed out that Kumble was too disciplinarian and therefore the team members were not very happy with him.”
“I spoke to Virat Kohli on this issue and he mentioned that the younger members of the team feel intimidated by the way they work with him.” Rai revealed that the then Cricket Advisory Committee comprising Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman had recommended Kumble’s reappointment.
“Soon, the CAC met in London and held separate talks with the two to resolve the issue. After three days of deliberations, they decided to recommend Kumble’s reappointment as head coach. decided to.” However from what happened later it was clear that Kohli’s approach was given more respect and hence Kumble’s position became untenable.
“We had a long chat with Kumble after he returned from the UK. He was clearly upset with how the whole episode was portrayed. He felt he had been treated unfairly and called a captain or the team. That much importance should not be given.
“It was the duty of the coach to bring discipline and professionalism to the team and as a senior, the players should have respected his views.” Rai also wrote that Kumble felt there was more confidence in following protocol and procedure and less on how the team performed under his guidance.
“He was disappointed that we attached so much importance to the following process, and given the team’s performance over the past year, he deserved an extension.” Rai further wrote that he had explained to Kumble why he did not get the extension.
“I explained to him that considering the fact that a process was followed in his earlier selection in 2016, and there was no extension clause in his one-year contract, we would also follow the procedure for his reappointment. Were obliged to do it. And that’s exactly what was done.” Rai, however, found it mature and prudent for both Kohli and Kumble to maintain a dignified silence on the issue, otherwise the controversy would have continued.
He said, “It is indeed very prudent for Captain Kohli to maintain a respectful silence. Any statement of his would have led to a cloud of thoughts.
“Kumble also kept himself on his side and did not go public on any issue. It was the most mature and respectful way of dealing with a situation which could have been unpleasant for all the parties involved.”
Dravid, Zaheer not appointed as consultants, reason and reality
In 2017, when Ravi Shastri was reappointed as the head coach (previously he was the director of cricket), the BCCI, in its initial mail, stated that Rahul Dravid and Zaheer Khan had been appointed batting and bowling consultants respectively. .
However, the decision had to be reversed and later Shastri’s right-hand man and confidante Bharat Arun was also reinstated as bowling coach.
Rai mentions in his book that there were practical difficulties due to which Dravid and Zaheer were not able to play the role.
“Laxman called to say that news reports were surfacing that the COA had allegedly given the impression that the CAC had exceeded its limits in recommending Dravid and Zaheer as consultants/coaches.
“He called to narrate the ‘pain of the CAC’. I assured him it was media speculation and someone was unnecessarily adding his unwanted two bits in the process.”
“The fact remains that Dravid was too busy with the U-19 team to spare time for the senior team. Zaheer was signed with another team and could not get engaged. And hence that recommendation was not acted upon. Could have been done. Lid on the process,” he wrote.
However, Rai’s recollection for everyone who covered the issue at the time seems a bit wrong.
“If he had known that Dravid and Zaheer were unable to take over, why would Rai have approved their appointments,” a senior official, who was active at the time, told PTI.
“The truth is that Shastri had made it clear after his appointment that he would work only if the support staff of his choice was given and that roster should have Bharat Arun,” the official said.
figures in the book
While Rai is absolutely correct in mentioning that it was Mahendra Singh Dhoni who recommended A category in central contracts, the figures mentioned on page 36 of the book do not match the reality.
“As per the suggestion of the team management, we prepared four categories, A+, A, B and C, and the remuneration was considered, ‘8 crores, 7 crores, 5 crores and 3 crores respectively. However, BCCI’s centrally contracted cricketers get Rs 7 crore (A+), Rs 5 crore (A), Rs 3 crore (Group B) and Rs 1 crore (Group C).
Ben Stokes salary
A factual error mentioned in the book is the salary of England all-rounder Ben Stokes which is quoted by Rai as USD 4 million (page 71) for eight weeks.
“Another notable example is that of Ben Stokes. He was barred from playing due to some cricket-related violations. It doesn’t seem to have bothered him too much as he earned USD 4 million in IPL, and that too only Eight weeks of engagement,” he wrote.
publicized
However it should be mentioned that Stokes was bought by Rajasthan Royals for USD 1.8 million (GBP 1.4 million) and not for the amount mentioned in the book.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Topics mentioned in this article