I would like to start with two quotes:
“India are more experienced team than us, our boys should learn from them,” said Nepal’s Sri Lankan coach Roy Dias.
“I am really disappointed with the behaviour of the Indian team. Being an experienced and good team, they should set an example and let us learn that, but they didn’t do that,” said Nepal U-19 manager and spokesperson of Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) Tarak Mani Dixit.
Dias made the comment was on the first day and probably we all agree with him. Dixit made the comment on the final match, and we again should agree with them. Because what Indian team did on during the series, and what a Indian TV commentator Nikhil Chopra, who had played for national team, did on the first day was not the thing a emerging cricket nation should learn. Rather, they are forgettable, disappointing and even disgusting.
What Nikhil Chopra did? The most worst thing, and controversial. He declared the man of the match on the second match himself ignoring the match referee. Can a TV commentator do that? Ask with anyone who knows little cricket, the answer will be negative. I wonder how a man who has already playing international matches forgot this.
CAN officials expressed their dissatisfaction with the Percept D’mark officials, the co-organiser of the event.
Percept D’mark officials were calling it a blunder; why shouldn’t they since it was. Percept’s vice president (sports) Nitin Beri even proposed to revoke the decision, but CAN President Jai Kumar Nath Shah, organising committee chairman TB Shah and CAN honoury Secretary Binaya Raj Pandey rejected it saying: We are not concerned about who gets man of the match but about the rules. And the rules were already broken.
Although man of the match prize (a watch and five thousand cash) went for Y Gnaneswara Rao, the official record will always say it was Pramod Basnet, who claimed five wickets in five overs for 17 runs.
I overheard a conversation between Beri and Chopra. The clarification Chopra gave to Beri will probably make you angry. Chorpa said: (rough translation) TV crews were calling to do it soon as the lights were going. What could have I done? I also did the same what the match referee would have done. He awarded yesterday’s man of the match to the player who scored highest runs and didn’t see the performance.
We should never learn it: underestimating a match referee, thinking oneself as a great and doing whatsoever one thinks right. Let’s rules rule cricket.
Now, let’s talk about the Indian U-19 team. The only wrong thing they did is related with their temperament. They argued with the umpires like honeybees buzzing about flower every now and then. Umpires are umpires and I find them good at umpiring, too well. What’s reason behind arguing every decisions with them? Only they will know.
On the final match, when a close run out decision went against the visiting team, its wicket-keeper stumped the batsman, who was clearly between his stumps and his crease, and appealed for a ‘out decision’.
My dear Nepali players please don’t learn that.
On the second day, there were some on the ground arguments between two Nepali players and Abhishek Sharma. I don’t blame only Nepalis for that. Okay, all of them to be blamed or lets think it as a regular part of cricket. But what to say for Sharma’s after match behaviour. Its customary that all the team members shake hands with members of other team, but Sharma went ahead without doing so with anybody.
No! Nepalis, don’t learn this.
What to learn then? Their skills, playing style and most of all experience the better opponent team. All that helps later. Although they could have given us a lot of learning, they chose not to.