Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nepotism in the IPL
191 views
Skip to first unread message
Tweedle Dee
May 25, 2014, 3:33:24 AM5/25/14
to
Anyone who saw yesterday's KKR vs SRH game would have been wondering what Srikkanth Anirudha was doing in the SRH side. He had not played a game in this IPL season, but in the last game, where there was still a slim chance of SRH qualifying for the playoffs, the think-tank consisting of mentor K. Srikkanth among others, thought that it would be a good idea to rest the likes of Finch, and also bring Anirudha in, ignoring options like Irfan Pathan, for instance. Well, Anirudha played 5 deliveries when SRH batted, scoring 3 and getting out quite tamely to Shakib, and then did not bowl at all. His only significant contribution came in the outfield, when he dropped the simplest of catches off Yusuf Pathan. The catch was such a dolly that Pathan had already started walking towards the pavilion, before he realized that Anirudha had grassed it. Pathan was on 0 at that time and, of course, went on to score 72 off 22 to destroy SRH. So this was the massive contribution made by mentor Srikkanth's son in a game that SRH *had* to win if they wanted to harbour any hopes of getting into the playoffs. It's hard not to think that Anirudha got the game because of his connections rather than because he deserved it over Irfan Pathan and others.
Then there's the curious case of Stuart Binny. How this guy got to go on the India tour of New Zealand and then be part of the Indian squad for the World T20 looks like a big mystery at first glance. One could think of at least a few other deserving names that did not make the cut. Then one thinks of the interesting fact that Stuart Binny is the son of Roger Binny, and that Roger Binny just happens to be part of the BCCI selection committee, and things start to make sense, after all.
Also interesting is the fact that Stuart Binny plays for the Rajasthan Royals - a team that has dropped/rested *every* player in their squad in this year's IPL, and this includes their captain Shane Watson, Ajinkya Rahane, their talisman Praveen Tambe, Sanju Samson and Steve Smith. Every player, that is, other than Stuart Binny. One would think from this that Binny must have been playing like Maxwell and Uthappa combined for them, except for the fact that Binny has scored a sum total of 123 runs at an average of 12.30 and a strike rate of 101.65 in this year's IPL, and has bowled all of 9 overs altogether. Makes one wonder whether the dad has some influence with the Royals franchise in some way.
Nepotism has always heavily prevalent in fields like politics and cinema in India, but cricket, at least in recent times, seems to have been (by and large) free of it. But cases like Anirudha's and Stuart Binny's suggests that it cannot be entirely ignored in Indian cricket either. Back in July 2011, when Srikkanth was the chairman of the selectors, he managed to insert Anirudha in the squad for the emerging players tournament in Australia. The hue and cry that followed probably stopped Srikkanth and co. from pushing for Anirudha's selection into other squads after that. But the media has been relatively quite silent over the issue of Stuart Binny being selected for the NZ tour and for the T20 WC, and without the media glare, such acts of nepotim may multiply in the near future.
-TD
Then there's the curious case of Stuart Binny. How this guy got to go on the India tour of New Zealand and then be part of the Indian squad for the World T20 looks like a big mystery at first glance. One could think of at least a few other deserving names that did not make the cut. Then one thinks of the interesting fact that Stuart Binny is the son of Roger Binny, and that Roger Binny just happens to be part of the BCCI selection committee, and things start to make sense, after all.
Also interesting is the fact that Stuart Binny plays for the Rajasthan Royals - a team that has dropped/rested *every* player in their squad in this year's IPL, and this includes their captain Shane Watson, Ajinkya Rahane, their talisman Praveen Tambe, Sanju Samson and Steve Smith. Every player, that is, other than Stuart Binny. One would think from this that Binny must have been playing like Maxwell and Uthappa combined for them, except for the fact that Binny has scored a sum total of 123 runs at an average of 12.30 and a strike rate of 101.65 in this year's IPL, and has bowled all of 9 overs altogether. Makes one wonder whether the dad has some influence with the Royals franchise in some way.
Nepotism has always heavily prevalent in fields like politics and cinema in India, but cricket, at least in recent times, seems to have been (by and large) free of it. But cases like Anirudha's and Stuart Binny's suggests that it cannot be entirely ignored in Indian cricket either. Back in July 2011, when Srikkanth was the chairman of the selectors, he managed to insert Anirudha in the squad for the emerging players tournament in Australia. The hue and cry that followed probably stopped Srikkanth and co. from pushing for Anirudha's selection into other squads after that. But the media has been relatively quite silent over the issue of Stuart Binny being selected for the NZ tour and for the T20 WC, and without the media glare, such acts of nepotim may multiply in the near future.
-TD
Arindam Banerjee
May 25, 2014, 7:58:46 PM5/25/14
to
Nepotism is about unduly favouring nephews... Whatever may be said about the Indian dynasties in cricket and politics, they are not into nepotism strictly speaking.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Tweedle Dee
May 26, 2014, 3:07:20 AM5/26/14
to
Also, I don't think that there are dynasties in Indian cricket, or that the cases of Anirudha and Stuart Binny indicate the beginning of cricketing dynasties in India, like in politics or Bollywood. I think the reason for this is that it is much easier to get away with lower ability in fields like politics and commercial cinema than in cricket. No matter how much money is put into marketing the son of a cricket star, in the end, the guy has to perform in the middle. Imagine an Anirudha and a Kohli batting against a Steyn and a Morkel. No amount of commentator hyperbole or flashy interviews would help Anirudha outscore Kohli, or make him look good in the middle. On the other hand, a good make-up artiste, aggressive marketing and money well-spent on scriptwriters, directors, songwriters etc. can help make a film starring a star-son into a commercial success, the credit for which can then be attributed to the son. Similar scenarios can be considered in politics. Hence the widespread and blatant nepotism seen in these fields. Fortunately for us, cricket is likely to escape this fate. Nevertheless, the case of Binny and Srikkanth shows that one must still be alert to this possibility of nepotism creeping into the game.
-TD
Bob Dubery
May 26, 2014, 5:31:45 AM5/26/14
to
On Sunday, 25 May 2014 09:33:24 UTC+2, Tweedle Dee wrote:
> Then there's the curious case of Stuart Binny. How this guy got to go on the India tour of New Zealand and then be part of the Indian squad for the World T20 looks like a big mystery at first glance. One could think of at least a few other deserving names that did not make the cut. Then one thinks of the interesting fact that Stuart Binny is the son of Roger Binny, and that Roger Binny just happens to be part of the BCCI selection committee, and things start to make sense, after all.
These situations do occur. Peter Pollock was head of selectors for SA when his son came up for consideration. Pollock Snr recused himself and left the room whilst his son's claim to a place in the side was debated and before doing so he said that he'd accept whatever his fellow selectors recommended.
> Then there's the curious case of Stuart Binny. How this guy got to go on the India tour of New Zealand and then be part of the Indian squad for the World T20 looks like a big mystery at first glance. One could think of at least a few other deserving names that did not make the cut. Then one thinks of the interesting fact that Stuart Binny is the son of Roger Binny, and that Roger Binny just happens to be part of the BCCI selection committee, and things start to make sense, after all.
If Roger Binny does the same then that's OK - it would be other selectors that picked Stuart.
Arindam Banerjee
May 26, 2014, 5:33:39 AM5/26/14
to
On Monday, May 26, 2014 5:07:20 PM UTC+10, Tweedle Dee wrote:
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 5:28:46 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Nepotism is about unduly favouring nephews... Whatever may be said about the Indian dynasties in cricket and politics, they are not into nepotism strictly speaking.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
> The origins of the term may have had to do with favouring nephews, but that is not how it is generally used today.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't think that there are dynasties in Indian cricket, or that the cases of Anirudha and Stuart Binny indicate the beginning of cricketing dynasties in India, like in politics or Bollywood.
Dynastic tendencies in Indian cricket as opposed to nepotism (an English way to support the sons and daughters of those siblings who inherited nothing, all the good stuff going to the great rich uncle) have been there, sometimes with success. Some illustrious dynasty names as Manjrekar, Mankad, Pataudi, Amarnath come to mind.
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 5:28:46 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Nepotism is about unduly favouring nephews... Whatever may be said about the Indian dynasties in cricket and politics, they are not into nepotism strictly speaking.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
> The origins of the term may have had to do with favouring nephews, but that is not how it is generally used today.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't think that there are dynasties in Indian cricket, or that the cases of Anirudha and Stuart Binny indicate the beginning of cricketing dynasties in India, like in politics or Bollywood.
> I think the reason for this is that it is much easier to get away with lower ability in fields like politics and commercial cinema than in cricket.
> No matter how much money is put into marketing the son of a cricket star, in the end, the guy has to perform in the middle. Imagine an Anirudha and a Kohli batting against a Steyn and a Morkel. No amount of commentator hyperbole or flashy interviews would help Anirudha outscore Kohli, or make him look good in the middle.
>On the other hand, a good make-up artiste, aggressive marketing and money well-spent on scriptwriters, directors, songwriters etc. can help make a film starring a star-son into a commercial success, the credit for which can then be attributed to the son.
> Similar scenarios can be considered in politics. Hence the widespread and blatant nepotism seen in these fields. Fortunately for us, cricket is likely to escape this fate. Nevertheless, the case of Binny and Srikkanth shows that one must still be alert to this possibility of nepotism creeping into the game.
>
>
>
> -TD
Tweedle Dee
May 26, 2014, 6:40:47 AM5/26/14
to
(http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/former-cricketers-surprised-at-selection-of-stuart-binny/1/333809.html?source=homernmnews).
Of course, if a player is deserving, then he should by all means be selected. I doubt that was the case in Stuart Binny's selection.
-TD
Bob Dubery
May 26, 2014, 7:10:48 AM5/26/14
to
On Monday, 26 May 2014 12:40:47 UTC+2, Tweedle Dee wrote:
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 3:01:45 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > These situations do occur. Peter Pollock was head of selectors for SA when his son came up for consideration. Pollock Snr recused himself and left the room whilst his son's claim to a place in the side was debated and before doing so he said that he'd accept whatever his fellow selectors recommended.
>
> >
> > If Roger Binny does the same then that's OK - it would be other selectors that picked Stuart.
>
>
>
> When Stuart Binny was chosen to tour NZ, he did not feature in the list of top 50 batsmen or bowlers in the Ranji Trophy season. Some former cricketers like Madan Lal, Chetan Chauhan and Kirti Azad were critical of the selection committee at the time.
Well we can all think of cases where a player has been picked and the public and pundits all say "wtf". That's neither here nor there. If Roger Binny recused himself then the selection is puzzling but unlikely to be nepotistic. If he didn't then there are questions to ask.
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 3:01:45 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > These situations do occur. Peter Pollock was head of selectors for SA when his son came up for consideration. Pollock Snr recused himself and left the room whilst his son's claim to a place in the side was debated and before doing so he said that he'd accept whatever his fellow selectors recommended.
>
> >
> > If Roger Binny does the same then that's OK - it would be other selectors that picked Stuart.
>
>
>
> When Stuart Binny was chosen to tour NZ, he did not feature in the list of top 50 batsmen or bowlers in the Ranji Trophy season. Some former cricketers like Madan Lal, Chetan Chauhan and Kirti Azad were critical of the selection committee at the time.
jzfredricks
May 26, 2014, 9:13:30 AM5/26/14
to
On Monday, May 26, 2014 9:10:48 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
>If Roger Binny recused himself
Do you mean "genuinely recused" or "publicly recused"?
>If Roger Binny recused himself
rgop...@netscape.net
May 26, 2014, 9:50:08 AM5/26/14
to
0 new messages