In the Virat Kohli-Anil Kumble saga, was the captain's opinion given an extra edge?
Not many can forget the story of guts and grits from India’s tour of West Indies in 2002, not even a sporadic follower of the sport. India were athirst to put an end to their drought of 30 years, during which they had not won any series in the Caribbean.
Batting first at Antigua, the Sourav Ganguly-led side posted 513. Anil Kumble was injured while batting, from a delivery off Merv Dillon. When the hosts were answering the chase, Kumble initially chose to rest his broken jaw. But later, he changed his mind, and what unfurled thereafter can be rightly gauged as the greatest story of determination on the 22 yards.
Bowling with his jaw strapped, to a batting line-up that boasted of stalwarts like Brian Lara and Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Kumble bowled 14 consecutive overs and even trapped Lara leg before wicket.
There couldn’t have been a more passionate servant of Indian Cricket.
When Kumble was appointed as the head coach of Indian cricket team 14 years later, the story from 2002 was the first that came to mind in 2016. One could relate why, amidst all other candidates, despite having no prior coaching credentials on his resume, Kumble was trusted to take Indian cricket to new heights.
Being India’s highest wicket-taker in Tests, his passion for Indian cricket was never open to debate. Several articles may have already told you how Indian cricket thrived under Kumble. During his reign, the Men in Blue bloomed wherever they were planted, be it West Indies or India, or even England recently.
Although Kumble’s one year tenure expired after the Champions Trophy, the BCCI gave him a longer rope until the end of the Caribbean tour.
But realising that a widening gulf between him and the captain would only make room for more controversies, and in the process hamper the team’s performance, Kumble quit, both gallantly as well as generously.
Ramachandra Guha hints how Indian cricket allows the captain too much power
Recall to mind the resignation letter of Ramachandra Guha, the well-known historian who quit from the Supreme Court appointed Committee of Members (CoA). For starters, here are a few lines he wrote in his resignation letter.
“The Indian team's record this past season has been excellent; and even if the players garner the bulk of the credit, surely the Head Coach and his support staff also get some. In a system based on justice and merit, the Head Coach's term would have been extended. Instead, Kumble was left hanging, and then told the post would be re-advertised afresh.
“And surely giving senior players the impression that they may have a veto power over the coach is another example of superstar culture gone berserk? Such a veto power is not permitted to any other top level professional team in any other sport in any other country.
“Already, in a dismaying departure from international norms, current Indian players enjoy a veto power on who can be the members of the commentary team. If it is to be coaches next, then perhaps the selectors and even office-bearers will follow?”
Read Here: Full text of the blazing seven-point letter written by Ramachandra Guha to Vinod Rai
The kind of intellect and reformation Guha could have brought on the table for BCCI might have been of immense use. His silence during his tenure made it clear that the man was muted by the dirty politics of the board. He probably found himself in a rut, unable to match up to the 'needs' of BCCI.
The non-conformist did what he was supposed to do, with grace, much like Kumble, and put down his papers.
Guha made sure that the world also knew about the politics that has poisoned the board. He did what was right, without hiding in plain sight. He wrote and he spoke about things that would have stirred a controversy.
But no, there was not a hint of it-- there was no bashing, badmouthing or even a bullying-- the three Bs that the social media is famous for. Because everyone knew Guha was right.
In his letter, the veteran, without hesitation, mentions that the BCCI has allowed centralised power in the hands of the ‘well-known’ cricketers. In this case, it becomes evident that Kohli had long ago informed his bosses about his fallout with Kumble, which, as per Kumble, was not communicated to him until two days before his resignation.
Whether Kumble stepped on Kohli’s toes or vice versa, is known to only the concerned. However, it became the moral responsibility of the BCCI to resolve the conflict, rather than let only one person have his say.
Even though the two didn’t share the same wavelength, Kumble and Kohli together were yielding results for the team. Then, it wasn’t wise of the Indian board to have let this successful partnership break, without making efforts to mend it.
If at all the relationship between the two had decayed to the filthiest point, which again is best known behind locked doors, maybe Kohli could have been a bit more accommodating, knowing that even though he didn’t enjoy Kumble’s style of coaching, Indian cricket was ultimately fetching good results.
Think back to the Sourav Ganguly-Gregg Chappell controversy. Ganguly was a domineering captain, just like Virat Kohli. The Australian didn’t like the idea of being a puppet to Ganguly’s brain, and thus was sacked. Again, was too much power vested in the Indian captain?
Same can be assumed in the case of this fallout.
The Peter Moores-Kevin Pietersen saga
Bring to mind the infamous bad blood between Peter Moores and Kevin Pietersen. After England were whitewashed in the Ashes tour, followed by a failure to make it beyond the Super 8 stages of the 2007 World Cup, England appointed Peter Moores as the coach when Michael Vaughan was the captain.
In 2008, Vaughan resigned and was succeeded by Kevin Pietersen.
The first assignment for Moores and Pietersen was the 2008 tour of India. England lost the seven-match ODI series 0-5 and then went down 0-1 in the two Tests. Following the debacle in India, Pietersen made it clear that not all was well between him and the coach, stating disagreements in Moore’s coaching style.
A meeting was then called by the England Cricket Board (ECB), after which both the captain and the coach lost their jobs. While Moores was sacked, Pietersen resigned on his own.
In the Kohli-Kumble case, has Kohli, in Guha’s words, exercised veto power over Kumble?
A fallout happens between two parties, and as a result, it is unfair for only one to bear the brunt of it. Losing a man of Kumble’s passion and calibre can be a loss Indian cricket will mourn for long. And if this sounds like an exaggeration, re-read the letter written by the idealist, who witnessed it all behind locked doors.
Also Read: Pause, breathe, and wait: Allow Virat Kohli to speak before vilifying him