Victimization is an art so subtle that humans seem to be inherently born with it. All you need to do is pick out an agenda, wax eloquent about how a certain section has been traumatized or victimized, and ride on the sympathetic wave of sorrow compounded with a sense of betrayal.
That a relationship couldn’t foster and develop into something that everyone had foreseen, as if Nostradamus himself had gifted the present, has enraged the masses and made a victim and a brat, respectively, out of two legends of the sport.
On June 3 in Birmingham, on the eve of India's first Champions Trophy clash against Pakistan, Virat Kohli made it abundantly clear that the speculations of a rift in the team were just that – speculations made to enhance the livelihood of some. His words were taken to be written in stone, without batting an eyelid at what he said at the end of the presser.
The India captain had categorically stated that differences in opinion are commonplace and that they happen in ‘every household.’ The nostradamic intellect, then, would surely have helped the conclusion of not everything being right in the team surface more vividly than ever.
If there were differences, and if those differences had reached a point of no return, as Kumble stated in his farewell letter, did Kumble not resolve them by walking away at the right time? How would, for example, the reaction have been if it were Kohli who had quit instead of Kumble?
The reactions would have been the same, just that the roles would have been switched. You see, it is that easy to victimize people.
And yet, from Sunil Gavaskar to a particular writer on this platform, everyone has hollered about how Kohli and his team have been outrageous brats and have no respect for the coach whatsoever.
Kumble’s top-notch record as India coach has been put forth as an example to elucidate how hard done by the third-highest all-time Test wicket-taker has been, as he has been the one ‘forced’ to walk away despite being the best at whatever he has done over the past year.
Let alone being the best, talks of him being the best Test match coach ever have been doing the rounds. But while all of that may be sane and sound, it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t have his captain behind him.
As to what the reasons were behind such a disagreement, nothing has been confirmed yet. While Kumble made it public that the captain had ‘reservations’ about his style of coaching, neither Kohli nor any other team member has elaborated on what those differences were.
Talks of the coach being a ‘strict disciplinarian’ and an ‘imposer’ have been doing the rounds. Gavaskar dismissed the collective conscience of the Indian players by saying that they need someone who would let them ‘go shopping.’
Does this mean that rigorous discipline, however dictatorial it may be, necessarily bodes well for the team, even at the behest of the displeasure of those who actually have to sweat it out in the field?
Nobody knows whether Kumble’s actions were dictatorial or not. Nobody knows either, whether other members of the team were also opposed to Kumble’s style of coaching.
What we do know is that there were differences between the captain and the coach of a top cricketing side, and that those differences weren’t in the best interests of the team.
However, what befuddles me is the lack of acknowledgment of the fact that Kumble resolved those differences by walking away before the confrontation could get any uglier, and that it isn’t a matter of bruised egos or spoilt brats but a matter of who decided to not be a ‘yes-man’ first.
For all we know, Kohli would have stepped down from captaincy, as it was later reported as a possibility, had Kumble not resigned, and the deadlock would have been resolved just as easily.
Because Kohli has a foul-mouthed attitude, because he cusses on the field and makes his displeasure felt – even to his own players – and because he is a star – notwithstanding the fact that he has worked his way to it – and because this demeanour is slated to be unbecoming of an international captain, as if he is none other than the late Hansie Cronje, he is destined to come under fire.
India villainizes its heroes with the same propensity and enthusiasm with which it glorifies them. What is forgotten is that you may be the best at what you do, but if certain things aren't working out, you being the best at your skills is irrelevant.
This applies to both Kohli and Kumble. One of them had to bow down at some instant, and Kumble was the one to do it first. Would Kohli have done it, had Kumble persisted? Probably.
Since he didn’t, and since Kumble is a legend, and since Kohli is perceived to be a trivial version of a legend who once batted for India, opinions are bound to be twisted.
One question still dominating the discussion is the kind of precedent that these developments would set for the incoming coach, and whether any sane person would be willing to coach the Indian team under the instruction that he/she would have to pander to the captain’s, and by extension, the team’s whims.
The rhetoric could not have been any better. Why would a coach be appointed or retained who is unsuccessful in fostering a healthy relationship with the players?
More importantly, the pertinent question still to be answered is: is the coach more important to a cricket team than the captain? How the two positions even compete against one other should be asked first.
Kumble clearly demarcated the role of a coach and presented it as ‘showing the mirror’ to the player with respect to his performances. This also means that if what the players see in the mirror isn’t conducive to their development and the team’s, either the mirror or the players must be changed.
How do you solve this? Do you rebuild a team, sack a captain, flounder in a World Cup, and then resign while mentioning “we didn’t play well” as the sole reason behind the team’s disaster?
Or do you sit down and talk with the players and make them see what you want them to, or maybe change the refractive index a little? What if even that doesn’t pan out? Do you stick to your mirror and use it as the Mirror of Erised and make the team see what you think they could have been?
Or do you, as Kumble did, realize that it isn’t working out and walk away? Why was this not in the interest of the game? Why do you have to necessarily ascertain as to who is more important to the team’s cause?
Moreover, if Ravi Shastri, as the popular opinion has it, was the apple of Kohli’s eyes, why was he removed in the first place? Even though he was removed and was replaced by someone who, despite delivering excellent results on the field, couldn’t get along with the captain, why is there a ruckus?
Is there a ruckus at every divorce that happens in India? Is there a ruckus every time a political coalition splits? Why is an unsuccessful relationship projected as a matter of life and death?
To not sound preposterous here are examples from the past. Cricket has had its history of captain-coach feuds. Mickey Arthur couldn’t get along with Michael Clarke, Peter Moores didn’t see eye-to-eye with Kevin Pietersen, and John Buchanan wasn’t on Shane Warne’s Christmas card list.
Arthur helped Australia win an Ashes and Buchanan helped Australia become world champions. There are times relationships don’t work out, and it isn’t because of an incapability on either side, but because you don’t fit into each other’s scheme of priorities.
It is wise and advisable to walk away before it becomes a matter of life and death.
Brand-new app in a brand-new avatar! Download CricRocket for fast cricket scores, rocket flicks, super notifications and much more! 🚀☄️
