Indian system should follow Lankan logic

In a team sport, the men presiding over the players’ destinies be it the selectors or the captain/coach have to inject the mandatory dose of confidence in the sportspersons to help them perform efficiently.

It is this efficacy that one sees in the Sri Lankan system that has played a quiet but significant role in the national cricket team’s cause.

The one vital difference between the Sri Lankan cricket selection system and the Indian one is that the former is not accountable to their cricket board.

Roy Dias, one of the all-time Sri Lankan batting greats and now a national selector, explains: “We are not answerable to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL). We are answerable directly to the Sports Minister.”

The BCCSL nominates the requisite number of selectors but beyond that they have no control over the selectors or their selection. The board informs the selection committee, when a home series/tour comes up, the number of players to be selected and leaves the rest of the process to the selectors.

Eminent former cricketers come readily forward to help their national cause. The present selection committee comprises: Duleep Mendis (chairman), Roy Dias, Asantha de Mel, Somachandra de Silva, Saliya Ahangama (all former Test players), TB Khelgamuwa (who has played unofficial Tests) and KM Nelson (a former first class players). The fact that Mendis also guides the destiny of the cricket team as a manager is an added bonus.

There is concern and compassion for the players in the attitude of the selectors. As Dias revealed: “I suffered in my times because of illogical selection policies, I don’t want the same thing to happen to the present players.”

Contrast this with the attitude of the Indian selectors. One of them was heard telling that he would finish off cricketers from the West Zone for all that he had suffered under two prominent cricketers of his time from Mumbai.If Indian cricket stands degraded and is in danger of decay, it’s because of such selectors who are so thick-skinned that even a national uproar against their narrow thinking and extreme regional bias in ignoring genuine talent in favour of blatantly undeserving one has had no effect on them. A complete lack of accountability has made them so self-centred in their personal gains, that they think nothing about sacrificing national interests and pride.

The Sri Lankan selectors give Arjuna Ranatunga the team he wants. The buck stops with the captain and it’s only fair that he gets the players in whom he has confidence.

As Ranatunga told The Indian Express: “India has a talented side. But they seem to lack in two aspects their fitness level seems suspect and, secondly, Sachin Tendulkar has not been treated properly by your authorities (selectors). A captain must have a say in selection matters. There are seven selectors in our country, but I get the team I want. After all, I’m the one who is leading the team. My suggestions have never come to a contentious vote. There is complete harmony and understanding between the selectors and me.”

On the other hand, the Indian selectors put Tendulkar straight away under pressure before this tour. They were contemplating giving Tendulkar the sack as captain and did not invite him for the team selection meeting, in which they picked the squad in which the skipper did not have any say whatsoever.That is not all. Just about every Indian player this writer has spoken to feels that he is under a threat. The selectors, believe it or not, were actually considering `resting’ the two main bowlers in the side vice-captain Anil Kumble and Venkatesh Prasad for this tour. Two other senior players, Mohammed Azharuddin and Nayan Mongia have already suffered shocking omissions.

As one player said: “Nobody is safe in the team. Everybody is stiff and tense that he could be the next victim. Can you really blame us under the circumstances if we try and play to cement our places first? This is after all, our bread and butter.”

What the country needs are selectors who have the vision and cricketing grey cells of the calibre of Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, ML Jaisimha, Chandu Borde, Hanumant Singh, S Venkataraghavan, Sunil Gavaskar, Brijesh Patel, Dilip Vengsarkar, Arun Lal and Ravi Shastri. But such is the system, that most of these men would not like to be found anywhere near the affairs of the board. Which is why we have to do with the mediocrity of Rusi Jeejeeboy, M Pandove, Kishen Rungta and Sambaran Banerjee in the majority for the last four years or so while stalwarts like Gundappa Vishwanath and Anshuman Gaekwad were the minority voices in the panel.

Ideally, selectors should be divorced from the affairs of the board. But, in India, four of the five selectors hold important posts with their state units. Naturally, the risk of vested interests, because of cricket administration politics, influencing their thoughts process in selection is high.

Of course, even in Sri Lanka there are dissenting voices against their system. As Anura Tenekoon, the former Lankan captain who later served three terms as selector with one as its chairman, opined: “It’s not a good system. I think the controlling authority of the game should have a say in selection matters. It’s the Board which takes the blame when things go wrong. Fortunately, there is no interference in our system. "Only when there is a grave case of injustice to a player, the Sport Minister would interfere. But, so far, such a situation has not arisen.”

The bottom line lies in the efficiency. And on that count, the Lankan system seem faultless.