National selectors come in for flak

Prem Panicker

The attitude of the average Indian to the performances of its cricket team has been modelled on the lines of the White Queen, of Alice Through the Looking Glass fame.

You know, the "Off with his head" syndrome.

Inevitably, however, while the team is panned after a poor run, the national selectors - who, weeks before the tour even begins, do their number within the confines of the selection committee meeting room, then step back and disocciate themselves from the end result - never come in for their share of the blame.

For once, however, it is the selectors who are taking stick - and the fire comes from various former India players who have panned the five-member selection committee for the blunders committed in course of picking the side for the recently completed South African tour.

And it was Madan Lal, the senior cricket coach, who started it all from Durban, when he said that the team was "lop-sided" and totally lacking in balance. Lal felt that for the right balance to be obtained, India needed to have at the least three openers, besides a minimum of five fast or medium pace bowlers. "As it stands, SAchin and Azhar among the batsmen, and Srinath and Prasad among the bowlers, had to bear the brunt of the burden and it is unfair to expect them to score big every time."

Lal also - and interestingly, in context of India's poor showing in the field - indicated that there was an urgent need for a physical trainer to accompany the touring side. "We urgently need someone to put our boys in top physical shape," the Indian coach urged.

Lal, however, was discretion itself compared to some former Indian stars, who lambasted the selection committee. The first salvo was fired by former Indian skipper Nari Contractor who, speaking at a workshop organised by the Cricket Coaches Association of Mumbai on Saturday, said that the selection of Indian teams was a disgrace. "In my playing days, I never got the side I wanted. Neither did Pataudi. And neither did Sachin Tendulkar," said Contractor, adding, "It is very sad that in India, the captain is only an onlooker when it comes to team selection. I tried to have my way when I led the country, and the result was I was branded an unpopular captain. I believe that the selectors should honour the captain's choice, and give him the side he wants."

Contractor argued that national selectors picked teams more on the basis of zonal loyalties than on sound cricketing principles. "Unfortunately, it is the captain and the team that takes the brunt of criticism after a defeat, while the selectors get off scot free," the former Indian skipper said. "For instance, take Mohammad Azharuddin. They sacked him after the England tour, saying he was not capable of inspiring your players. If that is the case, how is it that Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly, both of whom debuted on the England tour, did so well? I believe Azhar was sacked for no fault of his."

Another former India star, the stumper Naren Tamhani, echoed Contractor's views on Sunday when he said that "The Indian cricket selectors should be blamed for the team's pathetic performance in South Africa." Tamhane, who in his time has chaired the selection committee, said that "In my honest opinion, some of the better club sides in Bombay could have beaten this India side, which was selected at random."

Yet another voice raised against the selectors belonged to Dilip Vengsarkar, who has been consistently speaking out against the zonal system of selection that is routinely employed in the picking of national sides. "This Indian side would have fared better if the selectors had sent the likes of Jadeja, Robin Singh and Sunil Joshi right at the beginning. Speaking of the upcoming tour of the West Indies, Vengsarkar felt that Bombay's talented young opener Wasim Jaffer, coming off a prolific run in the domestic season, and Sanjay Manjrekar should be included in the side, as also pace bowler Abey Kuruvilla.

Dilip Sardesai, whose exploits against the West Indies under Ajit Wadekar's captaincy are the stuff of legend, also said that "The team selected to tour South Africa was atrocious. I feel that Wasim Jaffer, who has good tecnhique and Sanjay Manjrekar, should be taken to the Windies, we need two good opening batsmen on that tour. And I don't know what more Abey Kuruvilla needs to do to get selected."

Interestingly, no less than Kapil Dev had, earlier, blasted the national selectors. In his opinion, again, Ajay Jadeja should have made the first cut - and so should Navjot Singh Sidhu.

It takes no great cricketing knowledge to realise that the team picked for the tour of South Africa was, in fact, flawed and by reason of those flaws, foredoomed to fail. However, there is one interesting sidelight that I couldn't help but notice among the recent statements. When a Kapil Dev attacks the situation, he indicates that Sidhu and Jadeja should have been picked. When a Vengsarkar or a Sardesai attack the selectors, they argue that a Kuruvilla, a Jaffer, a Manjrekar should have been included.

Is it mere coincidence that Kapil's loyalties lie with Punjab and Haryana and that Sidhu and Jadeja play for the former? Coincidence, again, that Vengsarkar and Sardesai are Bombay men, and that their recommendations - Manjrekar, Kuruvilla and Jaffer - are also Bombay-based players?

Frankly, I find it most regrettable that this loyalty towards zones and home states is shared not only by the selectors but even by former Test greats. If the likes of the players mentioned above cannot be free of zonal bias, what hope is there then for the likes of Pandove, Bannerjee, and Rungta, not to mention Ramakant Desai and Shivlal Yadav?

I am not arguing here that a Jadeja, a Kuruvilla, a Jaffer or a Manjrekar are not good enough to make the last cut. But I do believe that Indian cricket will really find its feet only when say a Kapil Dev can go public and advocate the candidacy of say the Bombay-based Abey Kuruvilla, or a Vengsarkar and Sardesai be able to forget their Bombay loyalties and speak up for a Sunil Joshi, an Ajay Jadeja.

A tangential point - if former stars are themselves not free of bias, where then lies the sense in suggesting that the national selection committee should be comprised of Test players? What reason have we for presuming that such a panel will be any more objective, any less biased, than the one we have now?