new Delhi: According to Vinod Rai, who headed the Committee of Administrators (COA), Anil Kumble felt that he was “disrespected” and forced to resign as the head coach of the Indian team, but the then captain Virat Kohli believes was that the players were not happy with his ‘intimidating’ style of enforcing discipline. Rai, in his recently published book ‘Not Just a Nightwatchman: My Innings with BCCI’, talks about various aspects of his 33-month tenure.
The biggest issue, and perhaps the most controversial, happened when Kohli complained of differences with Kumble, who publicly announced his resignation after the 2017 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 found that Kumble enforces a lot of discipline and therefore the team members were not very happy with him.”
He wrote, “I spoke with Virat Kohli on this issue and he said that the younger members of the team were afraid of his way of working with him.” Rai revealed that the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) comprising Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman had recommended extension of Kumble’s contract. He said, “After this there was a meeting of the CAC in London and separate talks were held with both of them to resolve the issue. After three days of talks, they decided to recommend Kumble’s reappointment as head coach.
However, what happened later clearly showed that Kohli’s point of view was given more respect and hence Kumble’s position was destabilized. Rai wrote, “We had a long conversation with Kumble after his return from the UK. He was clearly disappointed with the way the whole episode went. They felt that they were treated unfairly and that a captain or a team should not be given so much importance. “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,” he added.
read also
Rai also wrote that Kumble felt there was more reliance on following protocol and procedure and less importance on how the team performed under his guidance. “He was disappointed that we attached so much importance to following the process and considering the team’s performance over the past year, he deserved an extension.” Rai said he had explained to Kumble why his tenure was not extended.
He wrote, “I explained to him that considering the fact that his earlier selection in 2016 also followed a process and there was no rule of extension in his one-year contract, we would like to see him again. : We were bound to follow procedure even for appointment and that is 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 wrote, “It is very prudent indeed for Captain Kohli to maintain a respectful silence. Any of his statements would have created a flurry of thoughts.”
Rai said, “Kumble also kept things to himself from his side and did not give public reaction on any issue. It was the most mature and respectful way of dealing with a situation that could have been unpleasant for all parties involved.” When Ravi Shastri was reappointed as the head coach in 2017 (earlier he was the director of cricket), the BCCI in its initial email stated that Rahul Dravid and Zaheer Khan had been appointed as batting and bowling consultants respectively. .
However, this decision had to be reversed and later Shastri’s confidante Bharat Arun was also reappointed as the bowling coach. Rai mentioned in his book that there were some practical difficulties due to which Dravid and Zaheer could not join the role. He wrote, “Laxman called to say that news reports were surfacing that the COA had allegedly given the impression that the CAC had exceeded its limits by recommending the names of Dravid and Zaheer as consultants/coaches. had crossed.”
Rai wrote, “He called to tell the ‘pain of the CAC’. I assured them that it was media speculation and someone was unnecessarily adding their unwanted views to the process. The fact was that Dravid was too busy with the U-19 team and didn’t have time for the senior team. Zaheer was signed with another team and could not be linked. And therefore that recommendation could not be acted upon. So the whole process came to a halt.”
Though opinion’s side seems a bit wrong to the people covering the issue at the time. “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 fact is that Shastri had made it clear after his appointment that he would work only if the support staff of his choice is given and Bharat Arun should be on that list,” the official said.
Rai correctly mentioned that it was Mahendra Singh Dhoni who recommended A+ category in central contracts but the figures mentioned on page 36 of the book do not match with reality. According to the book, “As per the suggestion of the team management, we prepared four categories – A+, A, B and C, and the amount considered was Rs.8 crore, Rs.7 crore, Rs.5 crore and Rs.3 crore respectively.” ” However, BCCI’s centrally contracted cricketers get Rs 7 crore (Group A plus), Rs 5 crore (Group A), Rs 3 crore (Group B) and Rs 1 crore (Group C).
A factual mistake mentioned in the book is the salary of England all-rounder Ben Stokes, which Rai has given as US$4 million (page 71) for eight weeks. He wrote, “Another notable example is Ben Stokes. He was barred from playing for some reason other than cricket. Looks like it didn’t make much difference to him as he earned US$4 million in IPL and that too playing just eight weeks.” However, it should be mentioned that Stokes was bought by Rajasthan Royals for 21 lakh 60 thousand dollars and not for the amount mentioned in the book. (agency)