Sunil Gavaksar and Ravi Shastri must speak their minds: Tony Greig

Are Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri right in signing contracts with BCCI? DNA tries to understand the issues of professional ethics and conflict of interest in the deal by discussing with noted commentator and former England skipper Tony Greig. Excerpts:

What do you think of the controversy surrounding Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri?
I think Ravi and Sunny are very lucky. If the BCCI offered me close to $1 million a year, and they also said that ‘we will see that you commentate everywhere’, I too would be careful about criticising them.

That is the natural reaction. If you get paid the majority of your money by a board, then it is very likely you won’t be critical of its decisions. In a way, I feel sorry for Sunny and Ravi. These guys did not get paid very well during their playing days. I’m reluctant to criticise them for taking advantage of the situation now. I saw how Sunny, in particular, was treated and they were paid peanuts then. There is, however, no doubt that they have a conflict of interest.
 
But it is not confined to India alone. Is it?
There are other players in the world who do the same thing. Australia’s Mark Taylor springs to my mind. He is a member of the Cricket Australia (CA). He does his CA work for nothing. Mark also works for Channel 9, who pay him for his commentary. Mark handles the two jobs very professionally.

He brings a lot of inside information and clarity to the commentary box. If I’m critical of CA, Mark might say, ‘look I understand your point but these are some facts you may not be aware of’. Sometimes, he is able to clear up the situation when not all the facts are known by the other commentators. Sometimes, it is helpful to have someone from the board in the commentary team. It helps you to provide the full picture, not just one side of the story.
 
What are the overall ethical parameters for a commentator?
Commentators have to speak their minds. Nothing should cloud their personal view. We should not be told what to say and what not. It happened to us during the World Cup. We were told we couldn’t be critical of the ICC. That is the first time such a thing has ever happened to me.

Commentators have a responsibility too. When I come to Sri Lanka, I am careful of the political situation and try not to pass comments on sensitive political matters. I felt that what Nasser Hussain said was correct. We get hired based on our cricket experience to speak our minds. If a commentator is scared to do that because of potential consequences, then he should rather stay at home.
 
Is it possible to defy the BCCI?
Yes, it is. But I have some sympathy for the predicament guys like Sunny and Ravi find themselves in. The BCCI decides who will commentate on the matches in India and the IPL. I don’t think that is a healthy policy. It is not just Sunny and Ravi, other commentators as well have to be conscious of what they are saying.

Otherwise, their names will be crossed off the BCCI list of ‘acceptables’. That’s a worry for every commentator. Cricket Australia has no say in who commentates on the Channel 9. In England, ECB has no say in the selection of the Sky commentators.  It is upto the television stations in these countries. Cricket boards should not decide who the commentators should be. After all, what do cricket boards know about commentary and who are the best for the job? They are not in the TV business.
 
Do you say they are being too nationalistic?
When Ravi argued with Nasser, he was sticking up for India. I’ve actually no problem with that. A bit of argument is good for television — the viewers love it. I don’t think a commentator should necessarily be unbiased. It is quite natural for Ravi and Sunny to want India to win. The business of being unbiased is nonsense. When it comes to serious discussion, you need to draw all your experience and speak the truth.
 
Then, what are your issues with Gavaksar and Shastri?
They must speak their minds. It may be that Sunny and Ravi believe that’s what they do now — I’ve not spoken to them so don’t know their feelings on this matter. I do, however, think the BCCI should be told that they have made a mistake on the DRS. I don’t know if Sunny and Ravi have studied the system thoroughly. I’ve studied ball-tracking every which way.

The only problem with ball-tracking is that the Indians are not using fast cameras. In the World Cup, they used slow cameras running at 25 frames per second. In Australia, ball tracking this summer will be run through cameras at 230 frames per second. All the Indian commentators were soft on the BCCI on DRS because it seems they were scared of the repercussions.
 
What do you want them to highlight?
One of the issues they should be highlighting is what the BCCI should be doing to recompense all the other boards for all the overseas players playing in the IPL. The various boards nurture their players to be stars and BCCI then uses these players to internationalise the IPL. The Sri Lankan board gets little or nothing and yet the BCCI wants all their players to play in the IPL. More of the IPL cash should be flowing back to the boards, who provide the facilities to develop the players. Many of the boards are also not arranging cricket during the two-month IPL window and that is costing all of the useful funds.
 
Ok. What makes a good commentator?
I’m reluctant to be involved in such judgments. It is not totally about individual ability but also about team work. I remember the days of Mark Mascarenhas. When he picked his commentary team for the 1996 World Cup, he closed the eyes and said ‘who do I want to listen to’. There should be cross section of experts. Some commentators can be technical and some excitable. There needs to be some humour and some disagreement. I’m a little biased but I think Australia’s Channel 9 commentary team has set the benchmark, both in terms of commentary and production.
 
So, would you have preferred them not to have been contracted to the BCCI?
I’m perfectly happy if they earn close to a million bucks as long as they speak their minds.
 
Do you know of any instances where the commentators criticise their boards?
Decisions made (and sometimes not made) by cricket boards and the ICC are criticised all the time on English, Australian and West Indian TV networks. To a lesser extent, this also happens on other networks. It does, however,  seem that there are a few boards who will not tolerate criticism by commentators and right now the BCCI is one of them.

Follow Tony Greig  on Twitter @greigtalks