Manjrekar’s Twitter Lecture After India-Pakistan Match, When Ex-Players Chase Relevance Instead Of Responsibility
He didn’t say it during commentary. He didn’t analyse it in a column. He didn’t even frame it as a cricketing discussion. He posted it on Twitter, instantly turning the aftermath of an India Pakistan match into a debate about his opinion rather than the match itself. Sanjay Manjrekar’s lecture on the absence of a handshake became the headline, and the cricket quietly moved into the background.
That shift is the real issue.
The Context Of The Remark
The post match conversation should have been about performance, pressure and execution. Instead, it became a morality discussion about symbolic conduct. The remark framed the situation as a question of dignity and sportsmanship, ignoring that India Pakistan fixtures have never functioned like ordinary bilateral games. They exist within a political environment where decisions, gestures and even scheduling carry meaning beyond cricket.
The result was predictable. The focus moved from players to the commentator.
Commentary Versus Social Media Performance
There is a difference between explaining the game and provoking reaction. Broadcast analysis attempts to add understanding. Social media rewards immediacy and sharp judgement. A one line reprimand travels faster than a layered explanation.
By choosing Twitter, the intention changed. The remark stopped being analysis and became performance. It invited outrage because outrage is what the platform amplifies. The discussion then revolved around the personality who posted it rather than the match that triggered it.
If The Principle Was Genuine
If the concern truly was about preserving sporting conduct, there were better avenues available to a former international cricketer. He has access to administrators, team managements and institutional forums where such concerns can be conveyed constructively. A detailed column could have explored the implications. A private conversation could have carried influence.
Instead, a public rebuke was aimed at players operating under decisions taken above them. It created noise without the ability to change anything.
Selective Moralising In A Political Rivalry
India Pakistan cricket has always involved signalling beyond the boundary rope. Tours are negotiated carefully, participation itself becomes diplomacy, and boards routinely use the fixture to send messages. Within that environment, isolating a handshake as the defining test of sportsmanship simplifies a layered reality.
Players execute instructions. Administrators set the tone. Public lectures directed at the most visible participants ignore where the actual decisions originate.
The Incentive Structure Of Modern Sports Media
The modern sports conversation rewards visibility. Nuanced analysis rarely trends. Sharp judgement does. For personalities outside regular broadcast roles, virality becomes a substitute for relevance. The cycle is simple: provoke reaction, become the topic, repeat.
But every time the debate shifts to the commentator, the sport loses space in its own narrative.
Responsibility Attached To Sporting Legacy
Former players carry authority earned on the field. That authority works best when it clarifies complexity, not when it compresses it into moral soundbites. Criticism is valuable when it explains. It becomes counterproductive when it overshadows.
Public trust in cricket voices depends on restraint as much as insight.
What Broadcasters And Fans Should Expect
The audience expects cricketing understanding, especially in emotionally charged fixtures. They do not need the conversation redirected into personality driven controversies. Sensitive rivalries require context, not slogans.
When the loudest voice becomes the story, analysis has already failed.
The problem was never disagreement with the opinion. The problem was the choice of stage and style. Influence in sport is meant to deepen discussion, not replace it. Turning a match into a social media spectacle may generate attention, but it does nothing for cricket.
