The State of Indian Cricket Commentary

Sanjay Manjrekar is ‘happy to apologise’ for his reinstatement in the BCCI commentary panel writes Devendra Pandey in The Indian Express

Sanjay Manjrekar (File)

Five months after he was removed from the BCCI commentary panel, former cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar has written to Board president Sourav Ganguly and other members of the Apex Council explaining his position and offering to apologise “if I have offended anyone.”

Manjrekar stated that he would be “happy to apologise” and that the sacking has “shaken my confidence” and was a “big jolt”. In this communication accessed by The Indian Express, Manjrekar noted that he was told by a BCCI official on phone that he was sacked because “some players had an issue with me as a commentator”.

The mail was a precursor to another letter the former batsman wrote to Board officials requesting his reinstatement in the commentary panel for the upcoming edition of the Indian Premier League – most likely to be held in the United Arab Emirates – and promising to abide by the regulations set by the BCCI.

“You are already in receipt of the email I sent to explain my position as commentator. With the IPL dates announced, bcci.tv will pick its commentary panel soon. I will be happy to work as per the guidelines laid by you. After all, we are working on what is essentially your production. Last time, maybe there was not enough clarity on this issue,” he wrote.

It has been speculated that Manjrekar was removed from the panel as a result of his comment calling Ravindra Jadeja a “bits-and-pieces player” during last year’s ODI World Cup and the subsequent reactions from fans and the player himself were an important trigger in him losing his job.

On July 3 last year, Jadeja had tweeted his ire at Manjrekar’s comments: “Still, I have played twice the number of matches you have played and I am still playing. Learn to respect ppl who have achieved. I have heard enough of your verbal diarrhea @Sanjaymanjrekar”.

After his half-century in the World Cup semi-final against New Zealand, Jadeja had gesticulated angrily towards the commentary studio. The official Twitter handle of the ICC posted a video of a post-match discussion involving Manjrekar. “By bits and by pieces, he just ripped me apart today. Bits of pieces of sheer brilliance, he proved me all wrong,” he had said that day.

In his first mail to Board officials, Manjrekar also flagged the perils of being a commentator in these times. “If we are not seen praising the iconic players all the time, the fans of those players tend to assume that we are antagonistic towards the players they worship … Anyone who has followed my career as a commentator would know that I have no malicious agenda against anyone and that my opinions come from a very pure place that I hold sacred. It’s cricket we are talking about, a sport that’s given me and my father so much,” Manjrekar stated. “I was greatly hurt! Especially because this came as a real shock!” he added.

Manjrekar reiterated his willingness to apologise. “So, really, this sacking for whatever reason, has shaken my confidence as a professional. If unwittingly, I have offended anyone I would be happy to apologise to the concerned party.”

Manjrekar also brought up the Jadeja issue in great detail in his email to the Apex Council, attaching an audio file of his comments. “You will see how benign it is when you hear it in right context”. He also wrote, “The player concerned obviously misunderstood this or was perhaps misinformed. By the way, the player and I have since privately made peace over this issue.”

He stated that the comment was not made during commentary but in an interview. “Please note this comment was not made by me on Twitter or in commentary, it was in an audio interview to a news agency… that got blown out of proportion. It was made as a part of a long media interview but unfortunately was made into an eye-catching headline by just one website and the player reacted sharply to it on Twitter. This got the issue the traction it did not deserve. ‘Bits-and-pieces’ is a cricketing term commonly used for cricketers who are non-specialists. It is regularly used by commentators to describe certain players and it’s never considered to be demeaning.”

In his email, Manjrekar listed out his standing as a commentator until he was “suddenly not found good enough”. “Until this moment I had been the leading commentator on the BCCI panel for many years fulfilling some of the biggest responsibilities there are in live broadcasting: lead commentator, post-match awards presenter, hosting the toss, doing player interviews and yes, impromptu BCCI functions on ground too. I am also one of the first Indian commentators that gets rostered for the World Cups by the ICC. I did my job with great pride and a 100 per cent commitment and suddenly not found to be good enough to be in the panel was a big jolt.”

Excerpts from Manjrekar’s email to BCCI

Dear esteemed members of the Apex Council,

In February 2020, completely out of the blue, I was told by Dev Shriyan, the head of production, BCCI Tv, that I was being removed from the commentary panel.

I have publicly maintained that — “the BCCI are my employers and they have every right to either have me or not, in their commentary panel. I have never considered being on a commentary panel an entitlement.”

But here, amongst a small circle of important stakeholders of Indian cricket, friends and colleagues, please allow me to open my heart.

I was greatly hurt! Especially because this came as a real shock!

I did my job with great pride and a 100 percent commitment and suddenly not found to be good enough to be in the panel was a big jolt.

Later I was told on phone by a senior office bearer that some players had an issue with me as a commentator . Now here is where our job gets a bit tricky.

If we are not seen praising the iconic players all the time, the fans of those players tend to assume that we are antagonistic towards the players they worship. That’s the professional hazard we have to live with doing our job. Anyone who has followed my career as a commentator would know that I have no malicious agenda against anyone and that my opinions come from a very pure place that I hold sacred. It’s cricket we are talking about, a sport that’s given me and my father so much.

My comments and opinions could be wrong, but they are never personal, derogatory or borne out of prejudice or cunning design, I am only biased towards excellence in performances, whether it’s a team or a player.

Now, let’s take the ‘ bits and pieces’ comment that got blown out of proportion during the last World Cup.

‘Bits and pieces’ is a cricketing term commonly used for cricketers who are non-specialists. It is regularly used by commentators to describe certain players and it’s never considered to be demeaning.

The player concerned obviously misunderstood this or was perhaps misinformed. By the way, the player and I have since privately made peace over this issue.

So, really, this sacking for whatever reason, has shaken my confidence as a professional. If unwittingly, I have offended anyone I would be happy to apologise to the concerned party.

Regards,
Sanjay

Why the Indian Supreme Court Has Found Itself in an Embarrassing Controversy

There is an important question before the judiciary: Who will be the custodian of the custodians? Rajeev Dhavan in The Wire

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (centre). Credit: PTI



Between December 2018 and April 2019, certain controversies concerning the Supreme Court of India have surfaced:

The first concerns the dismissal of an employee for taking casual leave and protesting against her transfer.
The second surrounds the scandalising of the chief justice of India by the said employee.
Third, the remedial action taken by the Supreme Court suo motu (on its own) under the writ jurisdiction of the court with the chief justice on the bench but not passing the order signed by Justices Mishra and Khanna.
Fourth, involving the exclusive in-house procedure for high court and Supreme Court judges.
These controversies are ongoing and may in, as much as they can, put the very notion of justice on trial. Our Supreme Court has often quoted Lord Atkin’s observations in a contempt case of 1936:

“Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”

This article is not intended to obstruct justice or bring into disrepute our justice system – with the Supreme Court at its apex – or the high office of the chief justice of India. It examines issues of due process and procedure.

Dismissal of an employee

An unprecedented controversy has arisen concerning an employee, who was transferred from the CJI’s ‘home’ or residence office, was suspended and later dismissed from the Supreme Court’s service. The charges against her included questioning her transfer, bringing/soliciting undue influence from the president of the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association on her transfers and taking leave without approval.

Her response was that she had been transferred three times, she had gotten leave for her daughter’s function and was asked to attend office for a little while but couldn’t and the branch officer was informed, and she had spoken to the president of the employees association to find out what was happening but not to influence outcomes. After her suspension order on November 27, 2018, she was asked to appear before a departmental committee hearing on December 17, 2018, but collapsed outside the door due to anxiety and was told on December 19, 2018, that the charges against her had been proven.

The next day her husband wrote to the officer concerned to present her defence statement. However, on December 21, 2018, she was dismissed from service. In another part of the story, with which may not directly be concerned, her husband and brother-in-law were dismissed from the Delhi police on a basis unconnected with the Supreme Court; namely a prior incident of 2012 which had been mutually settled and for links with undesirables.

Also read: Why the Panel to Investigate Sexual Harassment Allegations Against CJI Is Problematic

Far from being a drop in the ocean, or a storm in a teacup concerning an employee, it concerns the administration of justice by the Supreme Court’s administration. I assume that the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1961 apply. Dismissal from service is a major penalty, though it is not clear from the information available whether her dismissal would disqualify her for future employment (under Rule 11).

It is arguable that such a major penalty should not have been imposed; and although formal procedures were followed, they may have been insufficient and hurried. That can only be found when we examine the record of the inquiry which statutorily would include the charges, a written defence, oral and documentary evidence, orders of the Disciplinary Authority and a report.

Thereafter, due process would have dictate whether a major penalty must be imposed – which would normally follow if there is conviction on a criminal charge or “where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for some reason to be recorded in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to the Court an opportunity of showing cause before (awarding) any of the (major)… penalties…” (Rule 13).

Until we have the full record, we shall not know of the details of the rigour of the due process that were followed or the reasons for not doing so, bearing in mind that the woman had the same protection that civil servants under Article 311 of the constitution possess. For the present, the internal justice meted out to the employee seems in violation of due process and prima facie excessive. This is becoming more and more evident as information is coming out that she was not given a proper hearing and crucial witnesses were not examined at the inquiry. At the age of 35, her chances of further employment have been diminished.

Though not part of the charges, in the Supreme Court, it transpired that an FIR was filed against her on March 3, 2019, allegedly for taking a bribe from the informant (NK) who gave her a part payment of Rs 50,000 (part of Rs 10 lakh to be paid) to secure a job in the Supreme Court. She was granted bail on March 12, 2019, but the case was transferred to the Crime Branch which moved for the cancellation of her bail. In turn, she complained, later in March, of harassment by the police, writing letters to the prime minister, National Human Rights Commission and others. If this is a case of victimisation, it would raise more issues.

It could be argued that a little injustice here or there will not dent the majesty of the law. But surely the motto of any court action in its administrative or judicial side must be: “We, who fight for justice must ourselves be just.”

Scandalising the court justice

According to the law of contempt, if a person or media makes any allegation against judges or justice system which brings them in disrepute can be punished for scandalising the judiciary. This offence was invented by Justice Wilmot in 1765 in a draft order never delivered in the John Wilkes affair, but published in 1802 by his son.

Since it covers the media, it is a species of constructive contempt. It is included in the definition of criminal contempt under India’s Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (Section 2 (c)(iii)), and in any case also draws from the high court and Supreme Court power as a court of record with the specific power to punish for contempt (constitution Articles 129 and 215) and any other power in addition to the powers under the Act of 1971.

In a 1899 Privy Council case, English judges said this offence was “obsolete” for England, but may be relevant in “small colonies consisting principally of the coloured population”. This redemption for English justice was short lived and scandalising the judges was revived, but used sparingly in recent years. In India, the scandalising jurisdiction is used more frequently, despite the caution of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Mulgaonkar case (1978).

With this introduction, let us turn to our case. On April 19, 2019, the woman who was dismissed wrote to 22 judges of the Supreme Court detailing sexual harassment and sexual advances by the CJI in October 2018, giving explicit details of events when advances were made. She claimed further humiliation by being forced into apology under pressure for her insolence and that her dismissal was a case of victimisation, since the alleged major embarrassing incident took place on October 11, 2018. For our present purposes, we need not elaborate on the details.

Also read: Why CJI Gogoi Should Step Away From Judicial Work Till In-House Inquiry is Complete

What is important for our purpose is that when the media sought clarification from the CJI, the relevant response of Secretary General Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar (apart from denying victimisation, and asserting that her family had criminal antecedents and treating the allegations against the CJI as an after thought to her dismissal) categorically stated:


“The allegations regarding 11th October 2018, as well as other allegations as can be discerned from your emails are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and totally denied… the motive behind these false and scurrilous allegations is obviously mischievous.”

Whether this response was shared with the CJI before or after it was made is not clear, though no Secretary General would normally make such a public reply without consultation. One must, therefore, take this statement as the official response of the Supreme Court in consultation with the CJI. Hence it was the CJI’s response as well.

It is necessary to add that after the Vishakha case (1997), cases of sexual harassment are to be dealt with by a special procedure. But the Supreme Court’s Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women Regulations 2013 exclude complaints by employees in that Regulation 2 (a) defines an aggrieved person to exclude “a female already governed by the Supreme Court Service regulations”. This is a significant exclusion, denying the rigour of sexual harassment procedures which are applicable to non-employees within the precincts of the court but not the employees.

Be that as it may, the #MeToo movement has advanced the presumption that the complainant’s version be treated as prima facie bonafide. A sexual harassment case against CJI Gogoi needs to be moved forward.

Procedure for scandalising

We must pause here for a moment because the Secretary General clearly felt that a case of scurrilous scandalising is made out, the procedure ahead is clear. Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, a case of criminal contempt can only commence if the Attorney General or Solicitor General permit or if the Supreme Court does so on its own motion (Section 15 of the Act 1971). The way forward was simple. Issue notice of contempt to the woman and anyone else who repeated the alleged scandalising comments including the media. But the court did not initiate a notice of contempt nor did the Solicitor General present such a motion to the court.

Therein lies the problem. If such a notice was issued, the contempt proceedings would normally be in open hearings. Both the Mulgaonkar case concerning the Indian Express (1978) and Shamlal concerning the Times of India (1978) were about exposing the pusillanimity of Supreme Court judges during the Emergency. Except Chief Justice Beg, no one wanted this. Two of the judges (Justices Chandrachud and Bhagwati) were in line to become CJIs. Justice Krishna Iyer, behind the scenes, and in his judgment counselled restraint to avoid further publicity, which is inevitably one of the consequences of contempt hearings in open hearings. No less, the views aired at the time were that even though truth was not specifically a defence, it would be invoked against the justices.

Justice Krishna Iyer told me he was well aware of this consequence. His judgment constitutes what have come to be called the Mulgaonkar guidelines. No contempt – no controversy. After the amendment of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, in 2006, Section 13 of the Act specifically allows truth as a defence. The relevant portion reads:

“13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases – Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force … (b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bonafide.”

This would create awkwardness in the proceedings, to say the least. ‘Truth’ as a defence is available “in any proceeding for contempt”. In our present context, it would mean that the woman would present all the detailed evidence in her favour for invoking truth as defence, even thought the proceeding would be to protect the judge, not the complainant.

This was the only remedy by and through which the Supreme Court could have proceeded, but it chose not to do so. Treating this case as a purely contempt case would have proved hazardous for the CJI.

The Supreme Court’s suo motu action

Instead of a case in contempt for scandalising, the Supreme Court processed a writ petition as a “Matter of Great Importance touching upon the Independence of the Judiciary – mentioned by Tushar Mehta: Secretary General of India”. No petition was filed. It is clear that even if the CJI was the master of roster, he could not have handpicked judges and certainly not sat on the bench.

It cannot be overlooked that Justice Gogoi was part of the four judges who protested in public then Chief Justice Deepak Misra’s abuse of his power over the roster. Chief Justice Misra had also handpicked Justice Arun Mishra, who appears to have been picked in the present case in the special Saturday hearing on April 20. The less said, the better.

For the moment, let us assume that the petition was maintainable and that either (a) someone’s fundamental right was infringed upon, or (b) that this writ was part of the undefined power of the Supreme Court as a Court of Record, which specifically includes the power to punish for contempt. But since these proceedings were in lieu of contempt for scandalising, a new procedure was evolved at the instance of the CJI, albeit on the mentioning of Solicitor General Mehta.

In the hearings of the suo motu case, the Supreme Court did not caution a censorship of details which were in the public domain but invited the cooperation of the media by stating in its order of April 20:

“Having considered the matter, we refrain from passing any judicial order at this moment leaving it to the wisdom of the media to show restraint, act responsibly as is expected from them and accordingly decide what should or should not be published as wild and scandalous allegations undermine and irreparably damage reputation and negate independence of judiciary. We would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable.”

This is not a gag order, but a request to be respectfully treated as a gag: In the Sahara case (2012), the Supreme Court assumed a power to postpone reportage where criminal proceedings were pending, under the court’s inherent power as a Court of Record. The inherent power seems to be increasing by leaps and bounds. This invisible reservoir of power is slowly becoming visible and subject to diverse uses.

What needs elucidation is that the court’s proceedings of April 20 were specially held on a Saturday morning with the Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Rakesh Khanna being present. What seems astonishing is that CJI Gogoi was also part of the bench, but not a signatory to the order. No person can be a judge in their own cause or hand pick a bench. At best, it could have gone to some other bench without the urgency of a Saturday hearing. Master of the roster or not, I think the proceedings in this writ petition are sufficiently tainted and should be closed.

Instead of closing this suo motu writ petition, whose sole purpose was to quiet the storm of protest arising out of the CJI controversy, on April 23-24 the Court issued notice to advocate Utsav Bains who filed an affidavit in which he asserts that there was a wider conspiracy involving a corporate figure who, along with an alleged fixer Romesh Sharma, tried to “frame the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in a false case of sexual harassment to pressurize him to resign” and that Bains was privy to documents under sealed cover to prove this. On April 24, the bench consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, Nariman and Gupta summoned the highest officers of the CBI and police. The simplest solution would be to ask the CBI to investigate and file an information to this effect without the ensuing drama which has now become a part of the crisis.

The in-house procedure

Since the judges did not want complaints to be aired ad lib against them short of impeachment, an in-house procedure was created as a result of the agitation of the Bombay bar concerning the chief justice of Bombay in the Ravichandran Iyer case (1995). This in-house procedure was to protect public faith in high court judges. The question posed by the judgment was:

“When the Judge cannot be removed by impeachment process for such conduct but generates widespread feeling of dissatisfaction among the general public, the question would be who would stamp out the rot and judge the Judge or who would impress upon the Judge either to desist from repetition or to demit the office in grace? Who would be the appropriate authority? Who would be the principal mover in that behalf? The hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour needs to be filled in to stem erosion of public confidence in the efficacy of judicial process.”

The purpose was to prevent public discussion by the media or agitation by the Bar and to protect judges by harmonising free speech rights. The judgment, therefore, explores self regulation: “It seems to us self regulation by the judiciary is the only method which can be tried and adopted.” The trajectory was an in-house inquiry following which matters could eventually be acted upon by the CJI until when the Bar was to “suspend all action”. The court said,

“The Chief Justice of India, on receipt of the information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, after being satisfied about the correctness and truth touching the conduct of the Judge, may tender such advice either directly or may initiate such action, as is deemed necessary or warranted under given facts and circumstances. If circumstances permit, it may be salutary to take the Judge into confidence before initiating action. On the decision being taken by the Chief Justice of India, the matter should rest at that. This procedure would not only facilitate nibbing in the bud the conduct of a Judge leading to loss of public confidence in the courts and sustain public faith in the efficacy of the rule of law and respect for the judiciary, but would also avoid needless embarrassment of contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Association and group libel against all concerned.”

Of course, in our case, it is the CJI who is involved. In a better-late-than-never initiative, the CJI passed the controversy to Justice S.A. Bobde (senior-most judge after the CJI), who will now assume the role assigned to the CJI in the Iyer case. Since Justice N.V. Ramana said he will not be a part of the panel, its constitution remains in question. Who will the panel report to? Surely not to CJI Gogoi? We are compelled to raise the further question as to whether CJI Gogoi was fully involved in the creation of procedure in this case.

Also read: Charge Against CJI Gogoi Should Be Handled Correctly If SC Wants to Keep People’s Faith

This procedure was also used in the Bangalore crisis and Justice Gupta (then chief justice of Kerala who inquired into it) told me that nobody wanted to depose against the judges. In the Madhya Pradesh case, such a committee was appointed against high court Judge ‘X’ who was later absolved. How would the woman complainant fare in a committee examining the case against a CJI noting that (a) the Supreme Court’s Secretary General has already taken a view that the allegations are scurrilous and (b) truth in its totality would not be a defence. I really think this in-house procedure was directed against the Bar in Iyer’s case in a particular situation and its extension is dangerous and undesirable as a clandestine in camera process.

No in-house procedure can be a substitute for a sexual harassment case.

Reviewing the controversy

This controversy is embarrassing in many respects:

I believe the dismissal proceedings against the woman employee were unfair.
The Supreme Court through its Secretary General had already taken a view that her comments were scurrilous presumably with the CJI’s knowledge since it aired his defence.

The procedure adopted on the Saturday hearing was unfair and tainted and must be closed.

If the Supreme Court felt the court was scandalised, the court should have issued contempt proceedings giving the accused woman the right to invoke truth as a defence.

The in-house procedure under the Iyer case is clumsy and unfair.

No in-house procedure can be a substitute for a sexual harassment case. The woman would have little chance and it is a moot question who would depose against the CJI under these circumstances.

There remains the question of whether during his investigation, the CJI should continue to sit in his judicial or administrative capacity. I am strongly of the view that we should continue to discharge both these functions in the confidence that he will not interfere with any procedure further. We have yet to learn the manner in which the in-house procedure will proceed.

We have seen that the CJI is likely to have known of the dismissal proceedings. He was certainly instrumental in constituting the suo motu bench. He is likely to have known of the Secretary General’s statement in his defence that the allegations were scurrilous. He had a choice to proceed in contempt as he did in the Justice Katju case, but may have felt that this might be perilous in the present case. He may have been right to pass on the controversy to an in-house, procedure, as an alternative because after the hearing on April 23, the judges of the first five courts appear to have met in conclave while hearings in those courts were suspended. The CJI seems to be in the know of the choices of procedures to deal with the crisis – each more inventive than the other.

In any case, this is a no-win situation. If the in-house procedure results in his favour, it will be sought to be questioned – but there is no forum for doing so. If it goes against him, the embarrassment will be greater, leading to resignation or impeachment.

Looking to the future

Having said this, there is a need for a judicial accountability mechanism for the high courts and Supreme Court through a constitutional amendment, as in so many countries. There must be a procedure to answer the adage Quis custodiet ipsos custodes: Who will be the custodian of the custodians.

Life as a batsman

Simon Barnes in Cricinfo

Batting is about death. And life of course. It's all about how useful - how good - a life you lead before you die. You are surrounded by pitfalls and bayed about by enemies, but the good person will come through adversity to triumph. And the less good person won't.

That life-and-death metaphor gives cricket its USP: its own particular force and vividness. Cricket - red-ball cricket in particular - is all about the little death of dismissal. Every great innings takes place in the shadow of fallibility. That, in the end, is what cricket means.

Batsmen, writes Simon Hughes, "are walking the tightrope between success and failure. One minuscule error and they're toast. Terminé. Caput."

Hughes has always brought an original mind to the interpretation of cricket. He invented the concept of The Analyst for Channel Four in Britain, and now he tries to analyse batsmanship in his latest, highly enjoyable book, Who Wants to be a Batsman? He calls on his experience of more than 200 first-class innings, and his career-long struggle to add a decent batting CV to the deceptively fast arm he possessed as a bowler.

He returns to the infinitely fragile nature of every batsman's experience. "In tennis, if you lose 6-0 6-0 and haven't returned a single ball, you will have still served a few yourself. You have contributed something to the match. In football, unless you score an own goal with the last kick of the game, you have got time to atone for any mistake you might have made. Hell, even if you have shanked every drive into the bushes on the golf course, there is always hope that you will nail one down the middle on the eighteenth…

"But nought in cricket. What has that achieved?"

Cricketers cherish the notion that a bowler can bowl a bad ball that's whacked for six and get a wicket next ball, but one error - one tiny, measly error - from the batsman and he's gone.

A batsman needs to combine rampant egomania with the selflessness of a Zen monk, and to hold the two things in perfect balance

But it's not necessarily true. And even if it were, it wouldn't be unique in sport. Batsmen make mistakes and survive. Very few batsmen reach three figures without a play-and-miss or a false shot. Perhaps every century is a demonstration of how much the batsman has got away with.

Joe Root made a major error in the first Test of the recent Ashes series. He should have been out for nought and gone back to the pavilion asking himself what he had achieved. But Brad Haddin dropped the chance, Root made a century, England won and Root was the hero.

In other words, and contrary to standard wisdom, there is a margin for error in batting. The top players are better at coping with it, and above all, better at cashing in when matters beyond their control happen to work in their favour.

The routine humiliation of dismissal is not unique to cricket. There are quite a few sports in which your participation can be over before the finish - and long before you're ready to give up. Sonny Liston failed to complete either of his two fights against Muhammad Ali: quitting on his stool in the first and knocked out in the second.

In all jumping competitions in the horsey world your participation can end prematurely with an involuntary dismount. I have watched the Grand National favourite fall at the first fence. I have experienced a public crash-landing or two myself, as it happens, and believe me, it hurts more than being clean bowled - about which, too, I know in more detail than I would wish.

In sports more dangerous than cricket every competitor knows that participation could end with the assistance of a stretcher. In some sports real deaths happen more often than they do in cricket. Let's have a moment of silence for Phillip Hughes at this point - but we should also recall that in 1999 five people were killed in the equestrian sport of eventing.

Back to the pavilion before facing a ball: Usain Bolt is disqualified in the final of the World Athletics Championships © AFP

In track and field, errors are savagely punished, and sometimes it's worse than getting out first ball. It's like being sent back to the pavvy for taking guard wrong. You're out without running a single stride of the race. Terminé. Caput. It happened to Usain Bolt in the final of the World Championships in 2011.

So I dispute the self-pitying notion of all batsmen (and ex-batsmen in the commentary box) who tell us that batting is a uniquely fragile sporting discipline. It just feels like that when you're out there.

That doesn't mean that a batsman is not in a unique position, and that it's not fraught with psychological problems of all kinds. It's just that cricketers - tied up in the intricacies of a single sport - tend not to identify the uniquely troubling aspect of batsmanship. It's the twin load of responsibility. When you fail as a batsman you have not one but two reasons to feel bad. You have lost a contest against another individual - and you have also let down your colleagues. You have failed yourself andyou have failed your team.

That's a hefty burden to bear. Of course there's an essence of that in all team sports - it's rather the point of them. But in most team sports you are operating with others. A goalkeeper in football is not as isolated as he looks: he's in constant dialogue with his central defenders, and his distribution of the ball is a core skill.

A batsman is as lonely as a golfer or a tennis player - but he's also working for other people. In some competitions they make tennis players and golfers shoulder a batsman's twin responsibilities: the Ryder Cup, Solheim Cup, Davis Cup and Fed Cup. Often you see great players unable to cope with a secondary responsibility: Tiger Woods never got the hang of it.

A great batsman must be like a top Ryder Cup golfer, not once every two years but in every single innings. He must - like Colin Montgomerie - find inspiration in this double responsibility. Woods goes straight back to strokeplay golf; for a batsman there is no other game.

If you fail as a batsman, you must deal with your personal inadequacies. Graham Gooch began his Test career with a pair. Repeated failure will cost you your place in the team. Your career will suffer. So will your sense of self-worth. But failure will also cost your team. You will fail to contribute. You will stop feeling like a part of the whole. You will lose matches and even if no one says anything, you know what you've done and what you haven't done.

Every great innings takes place in the shadow of fallibility. That, in the end, is what cricket means

It's the double whammy that's unique to batsmanship. That extends to cricket's bastard sister, baseball; the difference here is that baseball is weighted towards the pitcher and a dismissal is a relatively trivial matter; it's a run that's a big deal. All the same, the batter and the batsman share a double burden .

It follows, then, that again and again Simon Hughes goes back to the mental side of things. He offers "Ten Wanna Be Batsman Rules": of these, eight are mental. One is semi-facetious (this is "Yozzer" writing after all) and rule eight is "play at the Oval." The only physical tip is "Keep the head still."

It's almost as if every batsman had the same amount of physical ability, and that the only difference between good and great was mental posture. That's clearly not true: David Gower, Brian Lara and Kevin Pietersen clearly had something extra. But they also had mental ability: they could put errors behind them, didn't get sucked into the wrong sort of confrontation, knew how to pace an innings, understood when to stick and when to twist.

In cricket you often see a player of (comparatively) limited physical ability playing any number of match-winning innings because of a great mental attitude. Alastair Cook is a classic example of this type.

A player with a lesser degree of pure talent never takes success for granted. He is naturally disposed to make the most of every let-off. Thus you can turn an apparent disadvantage into an advantage. That's one of the most fascinating things about sport - and it's very cricket.

Batting is about shame and guilt: the shame of personal failure and the guilt at playing a part in team failure. It's also about escaping from - or being inspired by - these two things to find individual and corporate glory. You must sink yourself into the common cause without losing your sense of individuality.

A batsman needs to combine rampant egomania with the selflessness of a Zen monk, and to hold the two things in perfect balance. Unsurprising, then, that excellence is a rare thing - and that we value it so highly when we find it.