Pelé: Birth of a Legend (Movie Review)

Pelé fighting for a ball against the Swedish goalkeeper Kalle Svensson during the 1958 World Cup final. Svenska: Sveriges målvakt Kalle Svensson i duell med brasiliens anfallare Pelé. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5.

Directed by

Jeff Zimbalist,  Michael Zimbalist

Produced by

Brian Grazer, Ivan Orlic

Written by

Jeff Zimbalist, Michael Zimbalist

Starring

Kevin de Paula,Vincent D’Onofrio, Rodrigo Santoro, Diego Boneta, Colm Meaney

Music by

A. R. Rahman

Edson Arantes do Nascimento (Pele), World Cup Soccer Champion and Director, Empresas Pele, Brazil captured during the session ‘Can a Ball Change the World: The Role of Sports in Development’ at the Annual Meeting 2006 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 26, 2006. Copyright World Economic Forum. swiss-image.ch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Are you a soccer fan, specifically a Pelé aficionado?

Then this film’s for you.

There are worse things to do on a sultry, lazy May afternoon other than catching this biopic of the world’s greatest athlete of the 20th century chronicling Pele’s rise from the slums of Sao Paulo to the resurrection of Brazil and their ‘ginga’ style of soccer that makes it the beautiful game it is.

Kevin de Paula and Leonardo Lima Carvalho impress in their respective characterisations of the great man as a teenager and as a boy.

The scenes of the child Pelé  with his friends juggling a home-made football through the by-lanes of their crowded havens are a joy.

The action scenes—throughout the movie—delight as the players move to the rhythm of an unheard samba.

A historic symbolism is imbued to ‘ginga’ with his Santos scout Waldemar de Brito  describing it as a natural peace-time culmination of the Brazilian martial art Capoeira originally practiced by fugitive slaves in Amazonian interiors.

Pelé is first noticed by Brito when he and his friends take on all comers in a competition where they are the ‘Shoeless Ones’. They lose in the final to their taunters, an upper-class bunch of snotty kids, who incidentally nickname him Pelé. Dico initially reviles the moniker but accepts it when his father (played by Seu Jorge) informs him it’s the sobriquet that the crowd cheers him on with.

Pele’s real name is Edson Arantes do Nascimento—after Thomas Edison— and his familial nickname is ‘Dico’.

Dico loses one of his dear friends in a mudslide when they hide from peanut traders whom he and his pals had earlier robbed to pay for soccer boots for the tourney.

Pele loses all interest in the game and joins his father João Ramos, better known as ‘Dondinho’, in his janitorial duties. Ramos was a footballer in his younger days but failed to make it big.

The crux of the narrative is how Ramos rekindles the flame in his eldest son by teaching him to use firm and soft mangoes while practising balancing tricks using his shoulders, chest and feet. Soon, Pele is back to his ebullient best and it is his mother Dona Celeste who calls in de Brito to sign up Pele for club Santos—aged just 15.

Brazilian footballers Djalma Santos (left), Pelé (weeping) and Gilmar after winning the 1958 World Cup. Behind Pelé there’s Didi, while on the right side Orlando Peçanha. Svenska: Pele gråter ut hos målvakten Gylmar efter Brasiliens 5-2-mål i slutminuten av finalen av fotbolls VM 1958. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pele, the boy, promises Ramos to bring home the World Cup to Brazil when the national side loses to Uruguay at home in 1950. The nation is heartbroken and the primeval style of ‘ginga’ is discarded in favour of European- styled discipline and rigor.

(It is a story that would be repeated by the Brazilians. The Brazilians won in 1994 but the side was unpopular back home for its dour, defensive style of play—quite un-Brazilian. They would win once more in 2002, reverting back to the entertaining mode that makes them the world’s favourites.)

Pele moves to Santos but is disillusioned with the unimaginative style of play imposed by the Santos coach. He almost quits the club but is convinced to stay on by de Brito who believes that he has ‘The Ginga Force’ in him.

Once Pele displays his acrobatics and scores a goal for his Youth side, his coach is converted and lets him have his lead. He makes the first side and from there it’s a natural progression to the national side bound for Sweden for the 1958 World Cup.

The rest is history, as they say. Nursing a knee injury, Pele is lacklustre in the group games. The 17-year-old announces his arrival on the big stage scoring a hat-trick in the semis against France and a brace in the finals against Sweden.

There’s a telling scene before the final where Garrincha tells Pele, “In Brazil, I want to be European but now that I’m here, I realize I’m Brazilian and always will be.”
A group of misfits, derided so by Swedish coach George Raynor, gell together marvelously around the Black Pearl to bring home the Jules Rimet trophy.

The entire world embraces the ‘ginga’ style and soccer is never the same again.

Neither is Pele.

Related articles

• Pele: Birth of a Legend(kottke.org)

  ---

Azhar: Simply not true enough to be paisa vasool

Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5.

Language: Hindi.

Directed By: Tony D’Souza

Produced By: Shobha Kapoor, Ekta Kapoor, and Sony Pictures Networks

Written by:  Rajat Aroraa

Cast:

Emraan Hashmi as Mohammad Azharuddin.

Lara Dutta as Meera

Prachi Desai as Naureen, the first wife of Azharuddin.

Nargis Fakhri as Sangeeta Bijlani, the second wife of Azharuddin.

Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Azhar’s Nanu.

Rajesh Sharma as M. K. Sharma

Azhar, the movie, does not claim to be a biopic.

It is a fictionalised picturisation of Mohammad Azharuddin’s life-story. Azhar was the skipper of the Indian cricket team—making his way from a middle-class home to the pinnacle of Indian sport, from simplicity and humility to the easy arrogance of Armani suits, from a reclusive , reticent person to seeking and gaining the favour of one of Bollywood’s top actresses.

The movie is an attempt to whitewash and dramatize the Hyderabadi’s part in the match-fixing scandal that rocked the cricketing world in the 2000s.

Emraan Hashmi essays the title role with aplomb and mimics the former Indian skipper’s mannerisms to a T but is unable to dominate the frame in the way you’d expect  a larger-than-life Azharuddin to do.

Azhar’s teammates are reduced to caricatures jealous of his success, philanderers and simply unwilling to be embroiled in the messy match-fixing soup the protagonist finds himself in.

The famous showdown between Navjot Singh Sidhu and Azhar during in the 1996 England tour wherein the Sikh famously walked out of the side and returned home is not even alluded to in the film.

Jaywant Lele, in his autobiography, reveals the reason was that Sidhu was constantly abused by his captain.

The movie focuses on the court case filed by Azhar against the life ban imposed by the ICC and the BCCI which incidentally he won in 2012. The ban was revoked by the BCCI in 2005.

Mohammad Azharuddin Sangeeta Bijlani (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The movie fails to capture other aspects of Azhar’s life such as the tragic death of his son Ayazuddin in 2011. The separation from Sangeeta Bijlani is skipped over and there is no mention either of this third marriage to long-time friend, Shannon Marie or his rumoured affair with Jwala Gutta—which incidentally both deny vehemently.

There is also little focus on his aggressive fielding at point and the training that made him one of the most brilliant fielders of his generation.

The women protagonists have surprisingly substantial parts in the film.

Prachi Desai as Naureen is demure, sensitive and suffering. She is dignity itself while certainly not a women’s lib proponent.

Hashmi portrays Azhar as both bewildered by the turn of events and his personal turmoil yet fascinated by his new love interest, Sangeeta Bijlani.

Bijli catches Azhar on the rebound from her failed relationship with Salman Khan, leader of the brat pack of Bollywood. Azhar’s dedication of his match-winning knock to his new love interest at a man-of-the-match ceremony—signalling the end of his first marriage—is crass and cowardly.

Nargis Fakhri as Sangeeta is disappointing, unable to capture her glamour or her chutzpah at snaring a married cricketer under the noses of his unsuspecting spouse and the media. She comes across as a weak-willed woman who succumbs easily to the advances of a married man. The melodramatic scenes evoke very little emotion. Fakhri is no thespian. Period.

Bollywood and cricket can never be divorced. Dalliances happen all the time but seldom end well.

Lara Dutta as Meera, the defending counsel, has the most substantial role after Hashmi in the film. She’s bold and gutsy, speaks her mind and makes no bones about turning from friend to foe, fan to hater.

Ajay Sharma, Manoj Prabhakar, Ajay Jadeja and Azharuddin were all banned by the BCCI—Prabhakar and Jadeja for five years.

Jadeja’s ban was lifted in 2003 and he made a return to domestic cricket but he was never the same batsman. He never played for India again. Nayan Mongia—accused by Azharuddin—-was forced to retire despite not being found guilty by the CBI.

Hansie Cronje was the most tragic victim of this match-fixing scandal dying in a plane crash.

MK Sharma (MK Gupta) is the bookie turned approver who introduces Azhar to the sordid world of match-fixing.

Azhar—in the movie—purportedly accepts a bribe but only to shield his teammates from temptation. The reasoning is so spurious that one would best walk out from the movie hall at this point.

Navneet Mundhra writing for SportsKeeda does a competent job of listing the facts and distortions in the movie.

(Mundhra’s piece refreshed my memory about the facts of the case. The match-fixing controversy was the first to hit Indian cricket and it was the reason why I stopped following Indian cricket for a while. The Indian cricket fan has never been the same—the joys of victories tinged with suspicions about losses. Tehelka made its reputation for hard-hitting journalism based on its revelations with Manoj Prabhakar’s assistance.

My memories of Azza are of a wristy batsman who burst on the scene as a bundle of talent scoring three consecutive Test centuries on debut in a home series against England after staking his claim with a series of excellent scores in domestic matches. Azhar had arrived.

He was not—by any reckoning—a brilliant skipper, more a lucky one. He began the trend of having pitches suit the home side in Indian cricket.

He had a weakness against short-pitched pace bowling which he responded to in a counter-attacking style—all aggression , preferring to die by the sword rather than live on his knees.)

The scoreboard listing  the mangled  names of Sri Lankan and Indian players gives the game away.

The movie would have appealed to viewers more had it attempted to be a more accurate portrayal of Azhar’s feats and foibles. Look no further than The Program for a template.

The movie is bland and boring.

If you’re a die-hard Azhar fan, you’re better off staying home and catching his batting and fielding videos instead on Youtube or DVD.

.

Related articles

• Blast from the past: Nargis Fakhri sizzles in the remake of ‘Oye, Oye’(msn.com)

  ---

• This is why Nargis Fakhri felt kissing Emraan Hashmi ‘gross’ in ‘Azhar’(ibtimes.co.in)

  ---

Sushil Kumar or Narsingh Yadav for Rio? Ball back in WFI’s court

Sushil Kumar, World champion (2010) and Beijing Olympics bronze medalist Indian wrestler, attending annual sports meet of GGSIPU, Delhi as a chief guest. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Will it be Sushil Kumar Solanki, a two-time Olympic freestyle wrestling medallist or quota place qualifier Narsingh Pancham Yadav to represent India in the 74kg class at this year’s Rio Olympics?

The debate rages.

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) favours the status quo and will settle for the younger (and possibly fitter) Yadav.

WFI president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh  said:

“On one hand, we have the future of India’s most decorated wrestler and on the other, we have our parampara and rules. While rules say the quota belongs to the country, our tradition and court’s order has been to send the wrestler who has won the quota. I don’t know what to do or what to say.”

The federation omitted Kumar’s name from the list of probables sent to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

Sushil Kumar is not taking the slight lying down.

He said:

“All I am asking for is a trial. I am not saying that you send me to Rio because of my glorious past. I am only saying that whoever between me and Narsingh is better, should represent the country at Olympics. Since a quota belongs to the country and not to a particular individual, thus, when there are two good contenders, there must be a fair trial. There is a procedure that should be followed.

I have been at three Olympics already and won medal twice. My only aim is to win another medal for India.

Even the reigning world and Olympic champion Jordan Burroughs had to undergo trials to make it to the US team for the Rio Games. It happens everywhere.

The Sports Authority of India and government have spent a lot of money on my preparation and it is only just that I am given an opportunity to prove that I have utilised every bit of that.

I would not have asked for the trials if I was not well prepared. I am asking for it because I am feeling extremely fit and my preparations are top class. I am confident of doing well if I go to Rio.”

Logic dictates that the person who earned the quota place for the country should be the one on the plane to Rio. And who can doubt Yadav’s credentials with a bronze medal at the 2015 World Championships? Reason has no place or space for sentiment.

Each nation is only allowed one quota spot per event.

Sushil Kumar’s claim can hardly be overlooked either. The lauded Olympian made a successful shift to the higher 74 kg category claiming gold at the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games. He has not appeared in competition since suffering one injury after the other. His commitment and drive, however, cannot be doubted.

Yadav is not pleased with the controversy.

The 26-year-old is hopping mad and feels that a face-off between him and Kumar could deny him his rightful spot in the ring.

He said:

“Sushil is a great in 66 kg, but he’s just not fought enough in 74 kg in public — not in practice — for him to demand a trial.

The way I see it, I fought at least 10 bouts — in selection and at international meets and at the World Championship where I won the quota and medal to earn my right to go to Olympics. Sushil can’t decide my destiny or make his reputation by fighting just one match when I have fought at least 10. That’s unfair.

Has Sushil ever given a trial before going to Olympics. When I came back from qualifying I expected everyone to congratulate me at least. But I was shocked at how this turned out. People still don’t really want to know about me or whether I can win a medal or not. All they want to know about is how I am stopping Sushil from going. It’s demoralising.”

He added:

“Every person should fight for themselves. I have no hatred towards Sushil or anyone else. I am focussed on a medal. And I believe it’s my right.Mera haq (My right).

He should’ve fought me in the league — he had a chance to make his presence in 74 kg and the world would’ve seen him and nobody would deny him then. He could’ve fought me at trials in Sonepat. He could’ve gone and fought a few international meets against the top names. He should’ve made a name for himself. There are right channels open for everyone. But you can’t come at the end and say I’ll win one bout and go to Olympics. It’s not fair, even if it’s a double Olympic champion.

I accept he’s the best in 66 kg, but in 74 kg there is very little performance except Commonwealth Games which wasn’t great competition.”

Sports and sports persons in India cannot be divorced from the politics of the country.

And so it is with this imbroglio too.

Kumar fanned the flames further by appealing first on social media to his fans and well-wishers and has now written both to the Sports Ministry and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to intervene and facilitate a trial. The ace grappler is also considering moving the Delhi High Court if a bout is not arranged. Kumar can quote precedent from 1996 when two Indian wrestlers—Pappu Yadav and Kaka Pawar—fought a trial to be selected for the Atlanta Olympics.

Earlier, Sports Minister Sarbananda Sonowal refused to interfere terming it an internal matter of the WFI.

He said:

“It is the  Federation criteria that has to be followed. We can’t interfere. They are autonomous body. It is the responsibility of the Federation.”

Public wrangling of this sort could have been avoided had the WFI (and possibly other national sporting federations (NSFs) in the country) instituted a clear-cut policy much like the Australian Olympic Committee’s.

The AOC follows a three-step process:

1) Qualification (under the IF Qualification System)

2) Nomination (under the NF Nomination Criteria)

3) Selection (under the AOC Selection Criteria)

Athletes earn places either for themselves (by name) or by country quota. Unfortunately, for Yadav, his earned spot falls under the latter.

The National Federation decides the Nomination Process.

According to the AOC, the criteria could be decided as follows:

“Each sports Nomination Criteria sets out the event, performance standard or minimum qualification requirements an athlete must achieve to be eligible for nomination. For some sports this may be attendance at National Championships and the winner of that competition will be nominated. In other sports athletes may need to achieve a specific score, time or standard.”

Had such a system been in place, Sushil Kumar would—in all probability—been ruled out. Kumar has not been active on the national circuit. The Australians (and the Americans) do have selection trials but these are on the lines of competitions—not a one-against-one match-up.

The selection criteria is as follows:

“Once a sport nominates athletes to the AOC, the AOC Selection Committee considers each athlete based on the behavioural, anti-doping and administrative elements of an AOC document called the Selection Criteria. The AOC develops a Selection Criteria for every sport. Selection is at the absolute discretion of the AOC.”

An Olympic Appeal Consultant helps the athlete understand the reasons for the decision in question during the appeals process.

Sadly, for both Yadav and Kumar—who have tremendous respect for each other—only one of them can go to the Rio Olympics. The Tripartite Commission which can allocate spots outside of qualification and quota criteria does so only for countries that are under-represented at the Games namely their athletes number eight or less.

Either way, a deserving candidate will surely be left behind. Who’s to deny that the duo are medal prospects which is probably more than be said for other Indian athletes bound for Rio? Can you bet your bottom dollar that Kumar wouldn’t three-peat?

Update:

Sushil Kumar moved the Delhi High Court on 16th May, 2016 to force Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to hold a trial under the National Sports Code rules.

Claiming that he and his father-in-law Satpal Singh are ashamed to have to resort to such desperate measures to get justice, Singh said:

“We are ashamed that the issue had to go this far, but we were left with no other option.All Sushil has been asking for is a trial, which is the best and fairest way to decide who goes to the Olympics. We are not against Narsingh; he has done well to win the quota. This is about fairness.”

Kumar added:

“If it was already decided that the athlete winning the quota place would be the one going to Rio Games, then WFI should have told me and also my name should have been omitted from the sports ministry’s TOP scheme.

Then I would not have worked so hard in the last one year and also the government should not have wasted so much money and time on my training in India as well as abroad.”

Section 13.4 (a) of the National Sports Code states:

Update 2:
The Delhi High Court has directed the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to hear Sushil Kumar before arriving at their final decision. The bench would rather have the matter amicably resolved by the two sides than have a judicial proceeding.

Update 3:
The WFI allowed Sushil Kumar and his coach and father-in-law Satpal Singh to present their case this afternoon. The wrestling body are in no mood to change their minds and will present their findings to the Delhi High Court. It’s going to be a drawn-out affair.

Update 4:
Narsingh Yadav has been advised not to step out of the Sports Authority of India’s training camp lest he be set upon by unruly supporters of Sushil Kumar. Police protection for Yadav has been sought. What a sorry mess! Shades of Tonya Harding—Nancy Kerrigan?

K L Rahul: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Baby name elicits stares from women bystanders.

What he said:

“We were at airport and I said, ‘Baby, grab my bag’, two women started staring at us.”

Royal Challengers Bangalore opener and wicketkeeper K L Rahul recounts an unusually hilarious anecdote about his left-handed teammate Sachin Baby.

What he really meant:

“Was I looking at you,  ma’am, when I said that? Was I, ma’am, was I? Owww!”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Baby, don’t Blush when I call you by name.”

Interview with Musab Abid, Managing Editor of Sportskeeda

Who and what is Musab Abid? Define yourself.

If I had to define myself in one line, it would be – ‘A tennis nut and a writer, with a bunch of obsessive compulsive disorders that make me perfectly suited to correcting mistakes wherever I find them.’

Musab, you’re currently Managing Editor with Sportskeeda. What prompted you to quit your job with KPMG as a Tax Executive , throw it all up as it were, and join a start-up like SK? Did you have any apprehensions while making that decision?

I have always loved writing and sports, and I didn’t get to be involved much with either of those things at KPMG. It’s not that I hated my job as a Tax Executive; it’s just that Sportskeeda offered me the chance to do so many things that I love. As for apprehensions regarding the fact that SK is a start-up, let’s just say that I’ve always had immense faith in myself and the people I choose to work with. I was always fully confident that SK would turn into a success story with Porush and me at the helm.

As a managing editor at SK, what does your typical day entail?

As much as I’d love to have a ‘typical day‘, the reality is that the term is alien to me now. Every single day brings new challenges, and sometimes I find it hard to predict what I’ll be doing two hours from the present. Whether it’s motivating the team members, evaluating the site metrics, communicating with clients or even editing articles myself, my work changes with every passing minute.

Four years, four months into SK, what are the highlights of your career there?

We’ve seen a lot of important milestones during the time I’ve been at SK. There have been the traffic milestones, the referencing milestones (where SK has been lauded by external sites for our work) and even personnel milestones. I think I personally have had a lot to do with the gradual quality improvement of the site (although there’s still plenty of room for more improvement there), as well as the strength of our social media.

What’s the best part about your job?

The best part about my job is that very little of what I do feels like ‘work‘. Many of the things that I do are what I’d like to do in my leisure time too, which is probably why I end up working a fair bit on the weekends too.

What’s the worst part about it?

I guess the worst part is that with all the day-to-day management work that I have to do, I get very little time to pursue my creative interests – mainly, writing.

It has been remarked that editors can’t write after having to wade through other people’s work. Has that been your experience too, a writer’s block? How do you get over it?

I personally haven’t found it difficult to write because of my editing work. I actually don’t get much time to write these days, as I said above – that’s the only reason why you won’t find too many articles lately on my writer profile.

Sania Mirza in Citi Open Tennis on July 31, 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently, you published an interview with Sania Mirza at the Australian Open. Can you tell the readers about your experience meeting India’s tennis diva?

The most striking thing about meeting Sania is that she’s hardly a ‘diva‘ in person. All those stories about her being an arrogant, spoiled child are either fabricated or a result of her forthrightness. She is honest to a fault, almost blunt, and that is refreshing to see in such a high-profile public figure.

What sports are you into besides tennis, of course?

I like cricket a great deal, and I also occasionally follow badminton and F1.

Do you have a fitness routine? Can you tell us about it?

About the only fitness activity I religiously undertake is playing tennis over the weekend – 2 hours each day. I do occasionally hit the gym, and on other days I try to do a small workout at home, but I’ve never been able to do either of those things with regularity.

Besides Sportskeeda, what are your favourite sites on the web?

I love tennis.com mainly because of Steve Tignor, and I also follow Jon Wertheim’s columns on Sports Illustrated. For cricket, Cricinfo has been my go-to destination for about a decade now.

What next for Musab Abid?

Perhaps my worst quality is that I never plan for the future; I’m dangerously fickle-minded. I honestly can’t say with certainty where I’ll be 1 year from now, but I do think it’s a strong possibility that I’ll be helping Sportskeeda take the next big step in its evolution. Either way, I hope that wherever I am, I am doing good work.

Musab Abid is the Managing Editor of SportsKeeda,”the largest all-sports website in India, reporting on more than 30 different sports with a focus on indigenous sports.”

Disclosure: The interview was facilitated via email. Answers are published as-is.

Rahul S Verghese: Running, living and marketing

The first part of the interview can be read here.

As in one of the TEDx videos’s, this is a journey of passion and that has fewer business plans but is more about like minded people connecting – whether as customers, or as partners. We constantly seek out people with passion, and that’s what drives us.

If you think of it as ‘uprooting‘ anything is tough, if you think of it as a transition of fusing 25 years of marketing experience with 7 years of running experience, it is not. Any transition has its challenges and entrepreneurship provides its thrills, tests and rewards. And I thrive on challenge and adventure.

You studied at IIM Ahmedabad from 1980 to 1982. The IIMs are facing competition from several management schools both private and foreign. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

I think the IIM’s are poor marketing and business organisations, and the huge governmental control does not help their case. They need to shake out and do case studies on themselves and get their students – freshers, mid managers and senior managers to ideate on different strategies and get their management teams to go out and build an exciting vision and move forward.

How would you define yourself now?

Final word for the readers-

The most critical thing about running for you is to enjoy it rather than it being a chore, or being stressed out about some aspect of it, or being too caught up with distance or speed or form etc. There is a time and place for each one of them, but the backbone has to be enjoyment. Have fun.

Rahul Verghese is the founder of Running and Living.

Disclosure: The interview was facilitated via email. Answers are published after running spell-check.

Kane Richardson: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Kane Richardson powers down the grass on ‘greens and beans’.

What he said:

“When we go out to field and I’m standing at point, they ask me if I’m going to start eating the grass or not. “

Kane Richardson, South Australia and Royal Challengers Bangalore pacer, has turned vegan with a vengeance.

Terming the perception that a fast bowler has to “eat meat and drink alcohol” a stigma, the Aussie said:

“I didn’t want to eat animals. I challenged myself to stick to it, I guess it’s a diet but it’s not really a fad, it’s something you believe in.

I’ve done it for a year and-a-half, two years now but over this pre-season I’ll probably challenge myself to go vegan (a person who does not eat or use animal products) and train hard and see if I can do it and perform in four-day cricket.”

Richardson still enjoys his beer though.

He added:

“I’ve watched a lot of documentaries on it, and whether it’s right or wrong, I don’t know if that can be sustained the way people are gorging through food.Especially in Australia, we’re pretty spoilt with what’s available.

It’s just something I thought long and hard about and tried to change and have stuck to it since.

It’s just something I had to change with all the injuries that I had.

I did a lot of research on it. If it’s something that’s going to help me play for longer than I’ll definitely try it.

I’ll be vegetarian the rest of my life, it’s whether I can go full vegan, that’s the question.”

Peter Siddle, at the SCG vs. South Africa in January 2009 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Peter Siddle is the other Australian bowler who embraced vegetarianism.

Richardson said:

“I know Sidds (Peter Siddle) is the same, he’s quite big into that.

He’s got a platform in the media and he can try and help the way people treat animals, especially in India, it’s quite tough to see.”

What he really meant:

“My teammates can’t tell wheatgrass from any other kinds of grass—including weed!”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I’d chew the cud if I weren’t clever enough to carry veg snacks in my trouser pockets  such as raw carrots and fresh mini-tomatoes.”

West Indian cricketers flourish while administration languishes

While the Supreme Court continues to flay the BCCI and its associate members for dragging their feet on the Lodha Panel reforms, it has gone quiet on the Western front specifically the CARICOM coast.

It’s been a time of jubilation and turmoil for West Indian cricket.

The Calypso swingers under Darren Sammy uncorked an unprecedented second T20 World Cup win in astounding fashion with Carlos Brathwaite proving an unlikely hero. Their women’s team had the very same afternoon clinched their first ever World Cup in any form of the game.

Sammy , ever the team champion, utilized the occasion to roundly castigate the West Indian Cricket Board (WICB) for its step-motherly treatment of the players.

He said:

“We started this journey … we all know we had … people were wondering whether we would play this tournament. We had a lot of issues, we felt disrespected by our board, Mark Nicholas described our team as a team with no brains. All these things before the tournament just brought this team together.”

The WICB President David Cameron was quick to respond.

In a statement purportedly praising the World T20 organisers India and Bangladesh, Cameron said:

“The President would like to however apologise for what could be deemed inappropriate comments made by the West Indies’ male captain, Darren Sammy, in a post-match interview and would like to apologise on behalf of the WICB to the millions of fans who witnessed. The President has pledged to enquire the reason and will have the matter addressed.”

He had earlier tweeted:

The ICC would later join the WICB in reprimanding Darren Sammy and his teammates for their comments that were “”inappropriate, disrespectful and [bringing] the event into disrepute.”

The ICC press release read:

“The board considered the behaviour of some of the West Indies players in the immediate aftermath of the final, and unanimously agreed that certain comments and actions were inappropriate, disrespectful and brought the event into disrepute.

This was not acceptable conduct at ICC events played out on a world stage in front of millions of people around the globe.

The board acknowledged an apology by the WICB but was disappointed to note that such behaviour had detracted from the success of what was otherwise a magnificent tournament and final.”

Flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The gloss of the glorious treble of the U-19 World Cup, Women and Men’s T20 triumphs was wearing off quickly.

It wasn’t all rocky ground for West Indian cricket.

The newly minted BCCI and ICC head Shashank Manohar has been in an expansive mood notwithstanding the BCCI’s travails in the Supreme Court.

The Vidarbha lawyer first stated that he’s not in agreement with the ICC revenue-sharing formula wherein the Big Three—India, England and Australia—share the spoils and the leftovers distributed among the rest of the members.

Then the BCCI announced that bilateral ties between India and the West Indies would resume later this year. The cash-rich Indian body waived a $42 million damages claim against the abandoned 2014 tour. The West Indian cricketers flew home after the WIPA and WICB failed to resolve a long-standing pay dispute.

Late last year, the CARICOM cricket review panel suggested an immediate dissolution of the WICB. The panel was constituted by the Prime Ministerial Committee on the Governance of West Indies Cricket as a response to the crisis created by the damages slapped  on the WICB following the pull-out from the India tour.

The panel recommended formation of an interim board to install a fresh governance framework with the assistance of a change management expert.

The WICB rejected the report and its findings unilaterally claiming that none of the members of the board were consulted by the panel members.

Legends of the game were not so forgiving. Coming together under the banner Cricket Legends, Garry Sobers, Viv Richards, Wes Hall,  Andy Roberts and others met with Grenada premier Keith Mitchell, chairman of the Prime Ministerial Committee on the Governance of West Indies Cricket and sought the WICB’s termination.

That’s how the matter rests for now.

The following column will pore over specific recommendations from the panel and the WICB’s reasons for rejecting their proposals.

David Warner: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Australian cricketer David Warner (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

David Warner breakfasts like King Kohli.

What he said:

“Well, i am eating the same breakfast as Virat Kohli. I think it is all about being consistent and about keeping my mind fresh.”

David Warner is quite competitive with his text messaged war of words with Virat Kohli mirroring their battle for the Orange Cap in the Vivo IPL.

He added:

“It was a vice versa about the orange cap for being the highest run-getter. He texted me the other day, saying he’s coming for the orange cap – and my reply was, i am going to come back and get it off you.”

Warner also elaborated on abstaining from alcohol:

“Look, it’s been almost a year now since i stopped drinking alcohol. I will complete a year on May 20. My wife was pregnant at that time and i thought, why not go the whole nine months without drinking too. It was just to give myself a goal, something to achieve away from cricket. I have been fortunate enough to do that so far.

Once i get to the one-year mark, i will see what to do. I might keep not drinking or i might drink, who knows.

But it’s not about drinking. It is about giving myself the best opportunity to recover and to play cricket.

I have two daughters and a fantastic wife and they provide me all the support i need to achieve goals with. There is a life after cricket as well. Cricket is not the be-all and end-all and it is about setting myself up for after cricket.

Having stability off the field is always fantastic.”

What he really meant:

“A hearty breakfast for a healthy body makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise and a contender for the Orange Cap. I’m certainly not eating text messages for breakfast.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Kellogg’s—Breakfast of Champions.”

Louis Van Gaal: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZC5UNxmu3E

Van Gaal makes some hair-raising comments.

What he said:

“When you see what Huth is doing to Fellaini, that’s a penalty. Shall I grab you by your hair? What is your reaction when I grab your hair? Your hair is shorter than Fellaini but, when I do that, what are you doing then? It’s a reaction. Every human being who is grabbed by the hair, only with sex masochism, then it is allowed but not in other situations. They did it. They did it several times I think.”

Manchester United’s manager Louis Van Gaal can be quite surreal with his statements to the English press.

The Dutchman defended Marouane Fellaini’s elbowing of Leicester’s Robert Huth during their 1-1 draw on Sunday with the above statements moving to pull the questioning journalist’s hair.

What he really meant:

“Hair-pulling is quite a provocative act. A footballer who pulls his opponent’s hair deserves to be elbowed. I’d like to see you elbow me when I pull yours. Isn’t that bloody natural?”

What he definitely didn’t:

“That was the Hair of God and God’s elbow!”