June 4, 2010

Who's mentoring the players?

Young cricketers often need someone around to remind them of why they started playing the game
43

So there is too much money in the game. Young men with hormones on fire, and inhibitions left behind at the last stopover, find temptation at every corner and the wherewithal to yield. They toss more away on one purchase than their parents made in a couple of years, in a lifetime at times. And we look on from the sidelines tut-tutting, as the elders of our generation did at us. Surely, we say, they need to be mentored, need to be reminded of what it means to play for your country, need to be told of the responsibility they carry, of the inequities in our society... it's a long list.

The need for mentorship makes for an interesting debate. As the game grows bigger, as opportunities increase, as a tug on the shoulder seeks to drag young athletes away from the path that brought them success, surely they need someone to nudge them back, to drag them back sometimes? I strongly believe in the need for a sounding board, something that reminds young men of why they started playing this game, of what they can achieve through it, and of how they can grow as people, which is why, the best time to mentor players is in their late teens.

It is not always necessary that growth as a player and as a person must go simultaneously; sometimes you can be a giant in one area and a dwarf in another, but it helps if the two go together. It is especially useful because with Indian cricket, and cricketers, there is a history, even a legacy, of arrogance. The message, sometimes subliminal, sometimes direct, is that the world needs them more than they need the world. As some of us know, that is but a momentary high, but it can be a devastating high.

The role of a mentor can also be overstated; the need can be felt more in the mind of the mentor than by his ward, as every parent has experienced at some point. The day a player feels the need to be disciplined and respectful to his craft from within himself, he acquires a work ethic, and then nothing can stop him from being as good as he can be. If he needs to be reminded, then he hasn't felt it, and he will at best smile and nod at a mentor. In course of time he will realise that living with fame and money is a challenge similar to learning to play the short-pitched ball. Both can be career-threatening. Indeed, the bouncer has sometimes been conquered more easily than fame!

The argument, therefore, that young men shouldn't be offered too much is simplistic and impossible to deliver. These men possess skills that command a price, and you cannot insulate them from buyers, just as you cannot a fine equities trader or a magician or a winger who runs like lightning with the ball at his feet. It has often been said that they need the likes of an Alex Ferguson to groom them. It is a fair thought and it works in football, when it does, because the manager has the power to drop a player and endanger his future if he doesn't fall in line.

It is imperative that all selection, including that of selectors, be attitude-based. It could well mean that a team loses a dazzling talent, but inevitably the team will emerge stronger

That is why, in the Indian context, the selector is a critical and vastly under-exploited resource. If the selectors are men of integrity, and are seen to be putting the team's interest first at all times, they can be the agents of growth and progress that mentors sometimes cannot be. But we do not always look at it that way. The position of a selector is often a whimsical appointment, where before and after his term he wants to be seen to be close to the players he is now expected to adjudicate over. It cannot be like that. A Ferguson or a Mourinho or an Ancelotti work because of the nature of the system, where you play for a franchise and for money more often than you do for your country. If you don't toe the line, you lose your contract. It is something that a national body can rarely implement, and yet it must.

We have often had this debate in India and we return to the one-from-each-zone approach, even though with the new Ranji Trophy pattern the zonal system is obsolete. When the Duleep Trophy is disbanded, as it should have been a decade ago, even that vestige will vanish. We should then, strictly speaking, be able to appoint the best man for the job, but we won't because it has never been seen as a critical appointment. There is also this flawed theory that there is so much cricket that three people cannot see enough. Another reason to put limits to the ridiculous amount of first-class cricket played in India. As has been increasingly shown up, the quality of our cricket simply isn't good enough, and so under-skilled players get overpaid.

It is imperative that all selection, including that of selectors, be attitude-based. It could well mean that a team loses a dazzling talent, but inevitably the team will emerge stronger. Sadly the BCCI is too understaffed, and not committed enough, to focus on issues around the playing of cricket, and till such time it will be each man to his own. A show-cause notice fewer and one more player-care notice will do them no harm.

Harsha Bhogle is a commentator, television presenter and writer

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ww113 on June 7, 2010, 17:51 GMT

    Lalit Modi can mentor them.

  • ramseybala on June 6, 2010, 5:55 GMT

    Ya...we lost the series. Some combination of 'lack of talent' and 'attitude'. We back them...no point on criticizing them. We are from the same land. Mistakes are human.

    Regarding the selection criteria: a second string indian line up for Zim series is acceptable. But, why was 'Irfan Pathan', 'Uthappa', 'RP Singh' and 'Manish' left out.?

    these players have some exceptional talent. Yes i accept, Irfan and RP are off colour. But if u are not providing them a chance aaginst Zim, then whom are u expecting them to play. Straight away against Aus, SA or NZ? Bull Shit.

    Some sensible thinking has to go in.

    We praise a player when he is doing great, but what happens when he is off mark. U see a player by his talent and attitude too. Pathan brothers are fighters. so is Uthappa. If u expect them to score and take wickets in Indian soil and suddenly u want to play in lively pitches...if they fail, they are out. What is the logic?

  • dummy4fb on June 6, 2010, 5:41 GMT

    Who needs to mentor this Bunch of Losers aka Team India ? They only need IPL for making money, losing and winning does matter in that nonsense IPL. Team India and BCCI is madly obsessed with Stupid, Rubbish, Non-Sense, Obsolete, Commercial event IPL, which is selling 6s and 4s on Lifeless Pitches. IPL-Mad Team India is losing Skill, Inspiration, Motivation, Hunger, Determination, Committment and Fitness to play International or Test Cricket on lively Pitches. Curators, Commentators and BCCI Officials are working for IPL growth rather than Cricket growth. Until IPL is not thrashed, Team India is not going to perform well in International Tournaments. Test, ODI & T20 Cricket is great to watch at International level on lively pitches, unlike IPL Teams which looks like club cricket and played on lifeless pitches.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 5, 2010, 19:16 GMT

    Too much sex. That's the problem. The players should be banned from having sex, 4 days prior to a match.

  • Soulberry on June 5, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    Good article Mr.Bhogle.

    I have often wondered what selectorial integrity is. I mean, when it isn't obviously skewed to the extreme. GRV's panel identified and picked quality players butdid not produce much immediate team success back then.

  • motayyab on June 5, 2010, 15:05 GMT

    just play IPL and make money money is honeyjust INDIA lose to SL ZIM money money

  • Farce-Follower on June 5, 2010, 14:37 GMT

    The only meaningful mentorship that one can receive from BCCI is a mentorship in corruption and short-sightedness. Every slug that clings in this system does so, not because he is competent, but because he benefits from patronage. So we end up with selectors like Srikkanth and ex-cricketers who are afraid to comment with frankness. (Three cheers if Cricinfo publishes this).

  • dummy4fb on June 5, 2010, 11:45 GMT

    No one is mentoring. These youngsters are aimless and low on confidence.

  • Kunal-Talgeri on June 5, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    Mentor-ship is anathema to the Indian culture, where the old are threatened by the young. Opportunities are limited in our country, and the numbers multiplying. In the context of cricket, how can a young person approach a veteran when both are vying for the same limited slots? That is why Australian cricket is stable -- the selectors take the hard calls -- not the players -- and invest in the young (though Ponting is an exception). In 2005, the mention of 'Yuvraj' and 'Raina' in a Test team was considered ridiculous. The hard question was: could Ganguly have made way for a Yuvy? Could a Tendulkar have taken Raina under his wings? Implausible, because the seniors were busy playing international cricket anyway. :-) The idea of mentorship in a rich sport is to wait for utopia.

  • MyComments on June 4, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    Very well written article. I agree with you Harsh, but only tend to disagree about the talent part which is the basic problem. I personally feel it is more toward Zimbabwe side, who won these matches with sheer talent only. With country in turmoil I hail there effort and positive attitude. I am afraid to admit that India is lacking talent to some extend. It has population 1,181,685,000 about 94 times more than Zimbabwe 12,521,000 (Wiki estimates). Seeing this I think their 2nd tear team should have even won from Zimbabwe, just see how much interest we have in India about the game of cricket. Also it is not just a win by mistake; they lost comprehensively in both matches. India is making good progress in the world ranking of cricket, but some one rightly said; the higher you climb the more vulnerable you are.

  • No featured comments at the moment.