It's the men who matter

WE LOVE to knock the system. Nothing the Indian Cricket Board does can ever be good. Our selection process is the villain at whose doorstep we lay every Indian cricket failure. Each time the Indian opening pair faltered, and that was almost each time India batted, we found fault with the selection. The popular prescription for the malady was to convert a technically sound (!) middle order batsman to the No.1 spot. Ardent cricket fans, cricketers, armchair critics, the media, we all advocated the short-term remedy. And once the move bombed, we criticised the selectors for their short- sightedness. A classic example was the case of V.V.S. Laxman a few years ago. There was near unanimity about the need to open the Indian innings with the Hyderabad batsman. Often the opening slot was the only vacancy available to this young man and willy-nilly he acquiesced.

But Laxman was not an unqualified success as an opener. (Nor was he a total failure at that slot, not until he toured Australia in that capacity - and there too, he made an unforgettable 167 at Sydney). When Laxman was subsequently discarded, there was a hue and cry against the unfair treatment meted out to him.

What happened when Laxman went on making tons of runs in domestic cricket? We criticised the selectors once again for forcing him to open the innings in Test matches, when in fact he had always been a middle order batsman! And when he finally clicked at No. 3 (and how!), we said he should always have batted at that position. After all wasn't it the position at which he made all his runs for Hyderabad?

If in Laxman's case, his phenomenal record in India enabled us to say I told you so, domestic cricket is otherwise our pet aversion. Whenever a player with a massive domestic record fails at the Test level, we find fault with the system that allows such a selection, as though there were other valid methods. If teams were picked based on overseas performances, there would be a new team every time India returns from a tour. Again, it was Laxman's magnificent record at home that brought him into contention for a place in the Indian side. Even the much maligned Challenger system proved more than useful, as it helped us unearth a couple of cricketers and confirm the utility of others. It is through this route that Dinesh Mongia has come into the reckoning and Hemang Badani proved his value to the team, if proof was indeed needed. Should any of these players fail to deliver the goods, God help the selectors for being foolish enough to see merit in their local performances!

It is the same system that unearthed Sachin Tendulkar and pitchforked him into international cricket when he was hardly out of school. Imagine what would have happened to him in England or almost anywhere else - except perhaps in Pakistan, where hardly any system exists! It is the same system that discovered Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly, though it took a Sidhu walkout and injuries to key players for both of them to make their Test debut in England when they did. The Board-organised age- group cricket with all its ills - especially with regard to age-cheating - has produced almost every Indian Test player of recent times. (It keeps producing world champions in junior cricket as well, but this is where the declared ages of the players come into question).

My thesis is not that all's well with the way Indian cricket is run, but that there is nothing seriously wrong with the way it is structured. Apparently, debate does take place within the Board's panels and experiments are tried and discarded if found unsatisfactory. A good example is the short-lived Ranji Trophy Super League. Even if the emphasis is sometimes on quantity rather than quality, as in the Ranji Trophy knockout format that allows three teams from each zone to qualify, or the league format of the Duleep Trophy, more players get an opportunity to catch the attention of the selectors.

It is often the way the system is subverted by individuals in power that has led to wrong decisions costing Indian cricket dear. Even in the case of selection, doubtful choices by the committee have often turned out less harmful than the quixotic ones the `team management' later made on tour.

There are signs that more good decisions are increasingly being made than poor ones in the interests of the long-term welfare of Indian cricket. The patience the selectors showed with Ramesh when he struck a bad patch is an example. Despite widespread criticism of his footwork, they believed in his innate talent and ability to concentrate, and that patience has paid off. The induction of Shiv Sundar Das has been a master stroke. Again, the selectors kept their faith in him when he failed to convert good starts against Australia into big scores in Mumbai and Kolkata. The result has been that India has found a stable opening pair.

True the selection of Harbhajan Singh was perhaps the outcome of the captain's insistence and so was Samir Dighe's inclusion, the former a huge success, and the latter not a complete disaster viewed in the context of his gallant rearguard action, but there does seem to be genuine interchange of views amidst the selection panel, coach and captain.

Most of us have been critical of the zonal representation in the national selection committee. There are frequent demands, especially from former players, for a three-man panel instead, chosen purely on the basis of the selectors' credentials for the job, with no zonal considerations whatsoever. The idea sounds great, provided we can find the best three men for the job, men of undoubted integrity who care for Indian cricket. Otherwise, unlike many talented players who owed their selection to the zonal system, good cricketers may be in serious danger of being overlooked. The system will also have to include talent scouts of undoubted merit whose mission will be to recommend the best players to the committee.

Finding the right mix of personnel to man Indian cricket in all its aspects - administration, coaching, infrastructure development, selection, etc. - is vital to the present and future health of the game. Whether the endemic lobbying and infighting that characterise elections to cricket bodies in the country will facilitate that process is open to question. It is the individuals elected in such an atmosphere who are going to make or mar the system.

V. RAMNARAYAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Superstar status and the Sachin syndrome
Next     : How will the Indian football graph move?