BCCI cool on More-Chappell friendship

It seems More and Chappell?s tie-up doesn?t affect BCCI.

A couple of days ago, Kolkata’s Telegraph newspaper did a frontpage story saying that a batch of 14 boys from Kiran More’s academy in Baroda travelled to Australia to attend a two-week camp. The report said the boys were there to learn about The Chappell Way, a training package conceptualised by Greg Chappell and promoted by a private company in which he has a stake.

HT Image

The report implied that there was more to the trip than meets the eye and later media reports implied a sort of business partnership between More and Chappell, which would, in essence, be unethical given their respective positions in the Indian cricket.

The reports also said that unnamed BCCI officials disapproved of the way More mixed with the team members and his closeness with Chappell, as evinced in the picture.

While More refused to speak on the matter officially, sources close to him said he was very upset with the reports and saw them as an attempt to “defame” him by sections upset with a very high-profile and controversial decision the selection committee had taken. More apparently denied being part of any business partnership of any sort with Chappell and said students from his academy travelling to Australia for camps was not a recent development.

“Where’s the question of a business partnership? Chappell has been Indian coach for only a year. My academy itself is over 10 years old and students have been travelling abroad for the last three four years, to Australia, England, Malaysia and Singapore, to attend camps and play matches,” the source quoted More as saying.

While he did not deny that his students travelled to Australia to attend camps and even learned about The Chappell Way programme, he also added that they learnt about every good thing that came their way.

The Telegraph report said each boy paid Rs 90,000 for the fortnight’s package (though this is about the amount any academy boy going abroad will probably play). It also implied that the private company (and therefore Chappell) was using Chappell’s position as India coach to pro mote his programme.

“We also learn from Frank Tyson’s programme and from other cricketing books,” he apparently said, also pointing out that he had sent Munaf Patel from his academy to MRF to train under TA Sekhar, it did not mean he was up to anything. He reportedly added irately that as long as his boys weren’t being selected to the Indian team, where was the issue?

BCCI vice-president Shashank Manohar said the Board did not have an issue with More sending his boys anywhere in the world, including to a camp run by a private company which had Chappell’s stake as long as there was no concrete proof that these boys were being selected unfairly for India. “In my opinion, as long as there is no conflict of interest, how does it matter?” Asked whether they would be investigating the matter of a possible business tie-up, he said the Board did not work on the basis of media reports.

At the same time, he said they could informally make inquiries but even if there was evidence of a deal between Chappell and More, “It depends on the nature of the tie-up,” he said. “If it does not affect the team selection, why should BCCI bother?” Asked whether, as is felt in some quarters of the Board, the high degree of closeness between the chairman of selectors and the coach was an issue — the coach could influence selections on issues he felt strongly about like Sourav Ganguly — he said in his opinion, it was not.

“I think it is very important that they have a good relationship and I don’t see the problem. Neither Chappell nor Dravid has a vote and More has just one unless a casting vote is needed. There are four other selectors and I don’t see the issue at all.” However, there have been loud whispers from other parts of the BCCI on More’s proximity to Chappell and the amount of time he spends with the team. Said another top BCCI official, “That photo has upset some people, even if was in jest. Some members feel it was not dignified, that More has to keep his distance from the team.

He wears the same kit as the players, moves around with them, it’s not done.” More himself is believed to have said that the criticism was unwarranted. “If I don’t mix with the boys, how do I understand their problems or their psychology? This is silly.” Whatever the pros and cons of the issue, it adds another interesting chapter to the already controversial More-Chappell regime.