Questions raised against Anil Kumble's appointment show that India doesn't deserve sporting heroes

Kolkata 1993, Delhi 1999, Antigua 2002, Kolkata 2005, London 2007, and the list goes on.

Anil Kumble’s moments of magic under the sun have been aplenty and it’s not for nothing that in a country that produces spin bowlers in dozens each year, he is arguably the greatest ever to play the game. Look beyond Bishen Bedi’s guile and Harbhajan SIngh’s tact, and you will remember a lanky leg-spinner running into bowl with a fast-bowlers action. Be it on dead highways, green seamers or rank turners; be it to win or to draw, or to simply show that India wasn’t a meek side, the lion heart has rolled his shoulder for the national team for over 55,000 times.

But not surprisingly, in a country that often idolizes its batsmen and places cricketers’ achievements in the order of the number of runs he has scored, a champion has been disrespected to no extent.

Kumble’s appointment as a coach came in the backdrop of immense speculation regarding who would fill Duncan Fletcher’s shoes as full-time India coach, and amid hushed murmurs that the hot seat was being warmed up for Ravi Shastri. While some quarters have celebrated, a large section of the Indian media seems to have been grumbling over Kumble’s appointment.

And it is simply unfortunate that when servants of the game choose to look beyond their personal interests and stand up to give back to the country, people mock them, disregard them and question their credentials.

Here are a few misconceptions that need to be cleared about Kumble’s appointment.

Doesn’t meet criteria

In a bid to show the Supreme Court that things were indeed transparent and fair in Indian cricket circles, the BCCI did the unthinkable this time around – advertised for the head coach’s position on 1 June. Among the many requirements that were listed, two which caught the eye were – one needs to have a reasonable grasp of Hindi as a language, and one needs to have the prior experience of having coached an international or domestic team.

So when Kumble’s name was doing rounds as a frontrunner, the most blatant ammunition that backers of other candidates had against him was the fact that he didn’t have coaching experience, initiating the start of the ridiculousness of epic proportions.

A former India Test captain with 956 international wickets to his name, a player who was active for over two decades having had experience of playing in every single territory in the world stage, having been there done that umpteen number of times was made to lay bare his worthiness for the top job.

Much to the detractors’ chagrin, Kumble came up with the best road map one possibly could, highlighting his plans for each of the three formats. So much so that a panel consisting of three of India’s greatest batsmen were bowled over by his vision, while other candidates chose to harp upon what they have done till now over video conferencing from a foreign locale.

Many say being a coach and a player are two different ball games altogether, but fail to look at the fact that many with stellar coaching experience and a file full of coaching certifications sat inept when India got drubbed overseas over a period of nearly four years.

Does Kumble fit the criteria listed by the board? No. Does he qualify the test to be India coach? Yes.

One cannot simply disregard the qualitative experience that Kumble carries as a result of his leadership stints and it would have been India’s loss had he not applied.

Selected by his teammates

Another major theory doing rounds is that there was an apparent conflict that Kumble was selected by his former teammates, and as a result had a positive bias going in his favour.

While there would be a match of brainwaves between Kumble and the likes of Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, and VVS Laxman – it’s insult number two if people raise fingers at the integrity and capability of individuals who had revived Indian cricket from the doldrums of match fixing and mediocrity.

What makes this time’s selection so unique is that for the first time in this millennium, an out and out preference had been stated for a domestic coach, unlike in the past when committees comprising of Sunil Gavaskar and Shastri oversaw the appointment of foreign names such as Greg Chappell.

So what would the solution be to waive off this supposed conflict? Appointment of a selection panel comprising of stars of the 70s and the 80s, who have no understanding of the modern game or a committee of select foreign cricketers who would help decide an Indian coach?

The fact that there were no noises when this very Cricket Advisory Committee was appointed (at that time, it was heralded as the best thing to happen to Indian cricket) and when this very committee approved Shastri’s performances, bring to the fore the duality of India’s cricket pundits, changing colours as per convenience.

Ravi Shastri oversaw the Indian team as its director for nearly a year

Shastri cut a raw deal

Many opinions on air yesterday indicated how Ravi Shastri had cut a raw deal by not getting the chance to coach a side he had resurrected. The ‘Is Kumble as good?’ undertones were quite visible in those opinions and extremely misplaced.

Yes, Ravi Shastri took over mid-way after a shameful series loss to England in 2014, yes, he comes to the rescue every time, never really wanting the job. But has Ravi Shastri actually delivered extraordinary performances that none is capable of replacing him?

In the period of Shastri’s directorship, India lost (in spite of fighting hard) against Australia in the 4-match Test series and the “Mickey Mouse” tri-series that followed. After losing to Australia in the semi-final of the World Cup – a tournament that had been created to ensure that top teams go deep into the tournament – India lost a one-day series to Bangladesh for the first time ever.

That was followed by perhaps the only major achievement of that period when India beat Sri Lanka after 22 years, post which things were back to normal with South Africa crushing India in the limited overs series and Australia doing something similar Down Under.

Skittling oppositions on rank turners isn’t an achievement that is exclusive to this Indian side, neither is reaching the top four of a World T20 being played in your own home turf. By no means does one wish to devalue these results, but giving them more credit than what they deserve and over-romanticizing Shastri’s ‘body of work’ is a big no-no.

Shastri was overlooked because he wasn’t deemed to be as good as Kumble on the given day, with the decision being taken by an empowered panel that did what it had to do.

Needs to gel with the team

When many of India’s current lot of cricketers were plying their trade in domestic cricket, Kumble was a colossal figure in Indian cricket already – leading the Test side at that point of time. But it’s hard to imagine that people aren’t seeing the benefits of having someone of Kumble’s stature in the dressing room. Leave aside his stint as India’s leading bowler and Test captain – Kumble has carried himself with the dignity that would make a statesman proud.

So an individual who is well respected, has an extraordinary amount of cricketing credentials, is known for his cricketing acumen and has in the past displayed astute leadership abilities (like during the Monkeygate episode) will only be able to contribute positively to the dressing room culture irrespective of whether he gels well with the team or not.

The fact that Kumble has had successful stints with IPL sides and has mentored many young cricketers through his grassroots level coaching initiatives is good enough indicate his ability to find his space in the young dressing room.

Moreover, it’s always a positive to have contrarian viewpoints in the side. In recent times, Indian cricket has increasingly become more about ‘yes men’, where people pat each other’s backs and believe that life is perfect. Kumble’s inclusion creates a shake up in the established order and allows a dissenting opinion that will not easily be disregarded especially in the face of the kind of control young Virat Kohli has been able to establish over his side.

In conclusion

Anil Kumble’s biggest fault is that he isn’t media savvy and does not prefer playing to the galleries – a culture that is seldom appreciated in India in spite of the poor records one has seen with the likes of Chappell.

The major problem that people today have with Kumble is in the fact that he isn’t out there all the time, indulging in drum beating or PR. He’s a silent performer, goes about doing his work, just like he went about bowling his overs – with or without a broken jaw, no matter what, always at the line of duty.

Kumble won’t label legitimate contests as “Mickey Mouse” cricket, neither will he dismiss a series loss as something he doesn’t “give two hoots” about. He will remain the meticulous, hard working individual, willing to call a spade a spade – forthright, honest, unafraid to speak up.

And for that, he deserves a chance. If not to succeed, but to fail at least and that’s the least the Indian fraternity can do to recognize the efforts of an honest servant of the game.

It’s likely that a similar reception wouldn’t have been handed out to Sachin Tendulkar had he ever decided to don the coach’s hat without coaching experience. Eulogies would’ve been drafted, video packages of his hundred centuries would have been played. No one would have spoken of criteria, no one would have spoken of other candidates, it would have been Tendulkar alone.

So why not Kumble?