NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

A house divided against itself

One day, in class, a professor of English read out an essay.

At the end of the reading, he invited comments and criticism. And the students, one and all, panned it - deservedly -- in scathing terms.

When everyone had spoken their piece, the professor said on a smile: "Interesting. Very interesting. Because I wrote that piece myself..." *pause, here, while the class fidgeted in collective embarassment* "And you are right -- it is awful, atrocious, totally, completely lousy. The thing is, I spent six hours last night working on it, doing my damnedest to make sure that I did not omit one single feature of bad writing... and I believe I have succeeded.

"What defeats me," the professor continued, "is how you guys toss such things off day after day, without even trying!"

Recent doings in Indian cricket put me in mind of this story. I mean -- imagine if I, you, and in fact cricket fans the wide world over, sat down and meticulously drew up a list of ways and means to harm the game in the country, do you suppose we could manage to cover the ground as thoroughly, or do as much damage, as five individuals, meeting as the national selection committee, have done in just over 24 hours?

Having got this far, you are quite apt to go hey, there he is, off again on his favourite trip -- selector bashing!

I plead not guilty! What prompted the thought -- and this article -- is the realisation that yet another cricket season is upon us. A fortnight from now, the Indian cricket team will plunge once more into the international arena. Reporters like me will cover the team's performance or lack of it. Fans like you will lament the various defeats and call for the mass sacking of the entire playing side. And in all the heat and dust, we will forget that at times, the seeds of defeat are sown not on the playing fields, but in the area of administration.

We will forget, in other words, that there can be reasons for poor performance other than the individual, or even collective, form of the side in question.

Frankly, I believe that India, in the season coming up, is going to taste defeat more often than it seizes victory. More, I believe that the national selectors have virtually ensured that India fields, not a team of 11 players all pulling together in the team cause, but a bunch of individuals more concerned with their personal battles than with the cause of the side, and of the country.

Here is an itemised list of why:

Item: The national selectors put it about that Sachin Tendulkar's captaincy was under review, and that he could be axed. They did this knowing full well that Tendulkar had already been nominated, by no less than Jagmohan Dalmiya himself, for the conference of Test-playing captains at Lord's on July 11.

The selectors then met at Calcutta, and for almost an hour, debated heatedly the question of Tendulkar's continuance in office. And what shape did the debate take? Sources in the BCCI office indicate that the selectors did not argue the pluses and minuses, or put Tendulkar's various forays at the head of the Indian team in South Africa and the Caribbean, under a microscope.

Rather, three of the selectors joined together and called for Tendulkar's removal, and his replacement by Mohammad Azharuddin. The debate was furious, and Tendulkar was on the verge of being deposed, when a direct intervention from Dalmiya himself stemmed the tide.

It was pointed out to the trio that Azharuddin's appointment as captain would be laughed at throughout the country -- after all, the same selection committee had, a month ago, found Azharuddin unfit to be part of the squad of 14 for the Independence Cup. To elevate him, then, to the captaincy would have invited ridicule -- and it was made clear to the trio that if they persisted with their demand, it would be they who would have to go before the media and the public and answer hard questions.

So what did all this achieve? Simple -- it has undermined the authority of the captain, as far as the team is concerned. For today, the impression is that Tendulkar's tenure hangs on a slender thread -- and that is hardly calculated to inspire, in the other players, a sense of respect for his authority.

Item: The selectors, in naming Mohammad Azharuddin as a candidate for the captaincy, have accomplished... what? Simple, they have set up, within the team, an alternate power centre. And furthered the process of undermining Tendulkar's authority.

Look at it this way -- why was Azharuddin sacked from the side for the Independence Cup? Because captain Tendulkar and manager Madan Lal asked for it. Why did they recommend the senior star and former captain's omission? Because they felt that his attitude, during the South Africa and West Indies tours, wasn't quite what it should be, that his mind was not in the game, and that he was not pulling his full weight in the squad.

Today, Azharuddin has been reinstated by the selectors -- against the wishes of the captain and manager, it must be added. And since it is impossible that a player of his seniority will be picked for the camp and then dropped from the final squad, Azhar is a certainty for the tour of Lanka. So what happens if he plays the same carefree, neck or nothing brand of cricket he has been prone too in recent times? What happens if, as he did in the ODI against the West Indies at St Vincent, he over-rules the instructions of the captain, asks the batsmen to play risky shots and India yet again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory?

Why, nothing! Tendulkar cannot remonstrate, neither can Madan Lal, because the selectors have very clearly shown them that their wishes do not matter. And hey, how can a Tendulkar remonstrate with an Azharuddin anyway, given that the latter is now a candidate for the job of captain -- a candidate with the backing of three of the five national selectors, what is more?

So now, you have a captain with his authority diluted, and a former captain imbued with an extra-constitutional authority that he does not deserve to hold.

Please understand that this is not meant as a critique of Azharuddin the player -- his achievements speak for themselves, as do his recent performances. All that I am pointing out here is that by playing their own personal games, by attempting to cut Tendulkar down to size, the national selectors have in effect caused divisions in the side.

Item: By dropping the likes of Dodda Ganesh and Sunil Joshi, who till recently formed part of the Indian touring squad, what have the selectors done? Infused in the marginal players a sense of uncertainty, a sense of paranoia -- for it now appears that from the selectorial point of view, you can be good enough to be in the Indian team this month, and not good enough to make the first 27 the next. So which of the players -- with the possible exception of the stars -- can go in there with their minds focused entirely on the game?

Item: it is common knowledge that Madan Lal and Navjot Singh Sidhu had a public falling out, resulting from the latter's propensity for being injured and/or ill with alarming frequency. The selectors dropped Sidhu, for "fitness reasons", from the Independence Cup squad, and have now reinstated him for the Bangalore camp -- which means that like Azhar, Sidhu is a sure bet for the Lankan tour.

Has his fitness been cleared by a BCCI-sponsored medical examination? No -- the player handed in a medical certificate, and that was it. But then, Sidhu had given a medical certificate prior to the team selection for the I-Cup as well -- so how is this one any more gilt-edged than the one the selectors ignored a month ago?

More to the point -- did the selectors make an attempt to diffuse the tensions between Sidhu and Madan Lal, by bringing the two together for a 'clear the air' meeting? No, for such things are not part of our cricketing administration's mindset. Thus, Tendulkar has been left holding a hot potato, in the form of a senior player and a team manager who are at loggerheads with each other. And don't forget that relations between Madan Lal and Azhar not of the best, either -- in other words, the two senior-most players in the side do not get along with the manager.

That, then, seems a fair enough summary of the doings of the national selectors in the recent past. The result -- confusion and uncertainty within the squad, at the very outset of the cricketing season.

True, a good team is one that can lift its own game irrespective of existing conditions -- vide the Pakistan side, which has more internal politics happening than the Janata Dal, but which, on the field of play, performs to par and even beyond. In other words, the fact that the national selectors have played political games cannot excuse any defeats India encounters in the coming season.

But it must be admitted that this would be a factor contributing to a lowering of the team morale, right? Such wranglings and dissensions are not conducive of a feeling of unity within the side, correct? And though this cannot be the only reason, such factors do impact on team performance, right?

Right. And all because five men -- honourable members of the national selection committee -- are more intent on their petty personal games than on what is right for Indian cricket.

Which brings up a thought -- we are now engaged in a soul-searching phase. Vide Y V Chandrachud, probing betting and match fixing allegations. Vide the national selectors, "reviewing the captain's performance". So when, do you suppose, will we see a review, under the aegis of the BCCI, of this five-man panel of selectors?