Annihilation: Onus on selectors for experiments with "truth"

Heads had to roll after three matches were lost in a row from winning positions amid rumblings of conspiracies and attempted coup in the desert kingdom. The selectors did that, but by taking the easier route – going for soft targets. Thus Mohd Azharuddin was given a talk while the likes of Rahul Dravid, Vinod Kambli, Abey Kuruvilla and Venkatesh Prasad were told to take a walk.

The public perception that Azhar is not playing in the larger interests of the team was endorsed by itinerant cricket correspondents in Sharjah – the criticism more vociferous by the professionals and veiled by former players turned columnists – with statistical evidence supporting the theory that the normally fleet-footed Azhar tends to get run out in key matches.

The point is: If the selectors did not subscribe to the theory, Azhar had to stay. But if indeed the team management found Azhar guilty on that count, then it is ridiculous to tell a former captain and one of the seniormost players in world cricket what constitutes team interests and what does not.

Worse, it’s too simplistic to exonerate him with a pep talk. So while everyone was expecting a body blow, Azhar escaped with a Bollywood blow – all sound and no real action.

Sachin Tendulkar continues to sit in the hot seat. For sure he is not a cerebral leader in the Richie Benaud, Mike Brearley or Tiger Pataudi mould. But the fact remains that his job has not been made easy by a set of selectors who act as non-playing captains and by players who have personal agendas in a team cause. The unambiguous news from Sharjah of dissension and insubordination in the team only adds to the litany of woes of the beleaguered Indian skipper.

Sentiments cannot cloud reason. How many would have heard the names of Michael di Venuto, Adam Dale, Ian Harvey, Paul Wilson, Andrew Bichel and Adam Gilchrist a few months back ? Yet, these players form the nucleus of a refurbished Australian team after the selectors had the courage of conviction to mercilessly drop stalwarts like Mark Taylor and Ian Healy.

Anil Kumble’s exit was on predictable lines with his productivity and confidence levels dipping to an alarmingly new low. He has taken just 25 wickets in as many One-Day Internationals (ODIs) this year at over 37 runs per wicket.

Rajesh Chauhan has fared even worse, which explains India’s dramatic decline in the spin department. Chauhan has taken just eight wickets at an average of 58.87 in the 11 ODIs he has played in the last two years.

While an off-spinner is needed to counter the plethora of left-handers in the Sri Lankan ranks, it’s a job that could have been taken care of by the ambi-dexterous Hrishikesh Kanitkar. Chauhan’s place could have gone to left-arm spinner Nilesh Kulkarni, who could have done justice to the negative leg-theory ploy that teams are adopting so successfully in recent times.

However, with the replacement of Kumble with the more orthodox leg-spinner in Sairaj Bahutule, the team has one bowler to try and tempt the batsmen to sweep against the spin. The presence of Bahutule and Kanitkar gives the side depth in their batting and increased options for Tendulkar.

Debashish Mohanty and Harvinder Singh played a big part in India’s superb showing in Toronto earlier this year and the time was ideal to bring them back when both Prasad and Kuruvilla have not done anything outstanding. Prasad’s poor record against the marauding Lankans is also a point to contend with: 13 wickets from 14 ODIs at an average of 44.38.

Saba Karim has lacked the class and consistency at this level — both in front and behind the wickets. His exclusion is understandable. But what’s the logic in sidelining Vinod Kambli without giving him a look-in at Sharjah ? Selection committee chairman Ramakant Desai’s convenient helplessness — “If somebody is not going to take him (Kambli), we can’t help it” — is a reflection of the lack of transparency and the sheer callousness that the panel has for players and national pride.

If the selectors had given due weightage to long-term good over short-term gains, then players like Dravid, Ajit Agarkar and Kulkarni — to name just three — would have gained precedence over seniors Sidhu, Robin Singh and Chauhan who may not be there when the next World Cup is played in 1999.

Dravid had shown in Toronto last year that he can be a force to reckon with in ODIs. There is a place for the anchorman in overs-limit cricket as Geoff Marsh proved so effectively in his time. Now with the constant chopping and changing, the fine Karnataka technician finds himself in danger of being destroyed like Sanjay Manjrekar.

The selection committee chairman spoke about experiments with the team. The question is: are they experiments with truth?