Sunil Gavaskar
What is the biggest issue confronting the game today?
The gap that is developing between some of the Test-playing countries and the others — a few Test-playing countries have developed fantastic cricket while others have stagnated or gone down. Now that is the biggest challenge: to be able to make all the 10 Test-playing countries into pretty much equal cricketing powers. That is never going to happen. But even if you have six countries, that will be a big step forward.
In recent times you have become a vehement critic of on-field sledging.
I have never been against banter. But sledging is nothing really but abuse of the opposition. Sometimes players get away saying to the opposition something on the field that they would never get away off the field had they said it to anybody. One day this might lead to a physical confrontation on the field. Why do you want to get to that stage? Are you trying to tell me the Bradmans, Benauds, Cowdreys, Soberses did that?
They didn't. There might be a joke or two where even the butt of the joke laughs. A little gamesmanship did not affect us either. Today it is not that. I don't mind the four-letter word thrown into a sentence. That's not a problem at all. It's when the 'you so-and-so' gets in there that it becomes personal. That is what I feel is an absolutely unnecessary part of the game. We never heard the Merchants, Hazares, Amarnaths ever saying anything abusive to their fellow mates, so why should it happen here?
You were like a one-man spearhead, especially against England and Australia in several matters, as player and even later.Was this part of some deep-seated anti-colonialism in you?
Not at all. I have been vocal about it because I have seen it happening. It was happening increasingly, so I've spoken about it. Those who say that this is a part of the game are talking nonsense. Banter yes, abuse no.
Do you sense some kind of resentment of India's sudden rise to power, at least financial power?
No, I don't think so. That's not a factor at all. You just want the game to be a good sport at the end of it without people abusing each other. Let me explain. The Roger Federer versus Andy Roddick 2009 Wimbledon final was an epic game. If Roddick serves at 120 miles per hour, Federer trying to hit a backhand gets the top edge of the racket and the ball lands on the baseline of Roddick allowing Federer to get an absolutely flukey lucky point, would Roddick abuse Federer because of the luck he has? Then why should a bowler stand at his end and abuse a batsman who got an inside edge which went to the boundary, or who played and missed half-a-dozen times?
Federer and Roddick are playing for a major title and for millions of pounds, for rankings and stuff like that. Why should it be different in cricket? Why to go for wild abuse in a match? That's wrong. The game will be better off without all this. It's also a bad influence on young, upcoming players watching on television.
A lot of people see sports as a substitute for war. Does that subconsciously provoke sledging?
You throw yourself, die, do everything you know, to field a ball. You run three runs even when your legs are weary and tired, because that is where you have to give it your everything. By swearing at somebody you are just wasting your energy.
Did something early in your career provoke this sentiment against sledging?
It happened to me only once. I was staggered that a player who was making his debut in Tests, and I was well past 100 Tests, stood at the end of his follow through after I had cut him over slips for a boundary and swore at me. I couldn't believe it. That's probably the only occasion.
What do you think about the Twenty20-versus-Tests debate? Is Test cricket under threat?
I don't think Test cricket is under threat. It has been there for more than 100 years. Test cricket will become far more attractive, as it became after the advent of one-day cricket. We saw more results, less dot balls, and it became far more result oriented. The same thing will happen with the influence of T20s. There will be a lot more runs scored in a day than earlier, which means plenty of results and more excitement for viewers at the ground and on television.
You don't see the demise of bowlers like some players predict?
Look at the way the bowlers have come back in the Twenty20 game. They have learnt how to bowl, what fields to set, and, suddenly, they have got clobbered less. They will get occasionally clobbered by good batsmen, but they are also striking back. In the ICC Twenty20 World Cup, bowlers probably got as many 'players of the match' awards as batsmen or all-rounders.
You first played Tests for India 40 years ago. Is there anything you would have wanted to do differently now?
There are a couple of things I would obviously want to do [differently] if given another chance. Like our first World Cup match, where I got 36 not out. I would throw my wicket away now, which I wasn't brought up to do. Earlier on, the mindset was different. I think today I might feel a little more flexible as far as throwing-a-wicket-type situation is concerned.
Even in the Melbourne incident, where I was provoked into asking Chetan [Chauhan]to leave the field, let me clarify that this decision was not taken at first, but when I was making my way back to the pavilion and was almost 10 yards down, I was abused by the Australians. That's when I came back and took Chetan away. I wouldn't come back to do this today, because as a captain, whatever the provocation, I should have kept my cool. Yes, these are the two things I would have definitely changed.
Comments