Why the Abhijit Kale story is less likely elsewhere

...



			The most surprising point in the Kale controversy is not that it happened, but that it took so long — more than 70 years into India’s Test history — for something like this to happen. Because the appointment and functioning of Indian cricket selectors is typical of the ad-hoc manner in which the sport itself is run. As usual, India could learn a lot from other countries about how to make cricket administration professional SELECTING THE SELECTORS • In India, they are usually picked after two days of hard politicking at the BCCI’s Annual General Meeting. Each of five zones nominates one selector, the senior-most is chairman. n New Zealand’s procedure is through newspaper ads — merit-based, as with other top jobs. Test caps aren’t a must; current selector Ross Dykes never played a Test. ZONES SET THE TONE • One of the biggest complaints in the past against India’s selectors was a regional favouritism, caused by system of zonal selectors. Efforts to change system have met with plea that a large country needs zone-wise selectors. • But Australia, equally large, have four selectors without regional affiliations. Current chairman Trevor Hohns and Allan Border are both from Queensland. Story continues below this ad NO QUESTIONS ASKED, NONE ANSWERED • The Indian system lacks transparency; it’s easy for controversial decisions to be made because no reasons have to be given but the bad vibes — and the speculation — persist. So when Murali Kartik was dropped for the Australia tour, all Saurav Ganguly said was ‘sorry’. • When Steve Waugh was removed from the one-day captaincy, the Australian selectors gave a detailed explanation why, and then specifically said he would not play one-day cricket for Australia again. And they didn’t say sorry. PART-TIME PROFESSIONALISM • Where was Kirti Azad when the 20 probables were being chosen for Australia? Campaigning for his party, the BJP, and his wife in Delhi. What does Kiran More do for a living? Run his cricket academy in Vadodara. India’s selectors aren’t full-time employees of the BCCI. • In South Africa, the convenor of selectors is an employee of the board and receives a fixed salary (so too in Pakistan, but the de facto chief selector has little to do with cricket!). Allan Border is employed by Cricket Australia but would you doubt his commitment? DON’T COMPLAIN TO US • Nayan Mongia wants answers but gets none. He wants to know, officially, why he’s not been picked for India in the past 3 years and instead remain the subject of innuendo. He will never know, because the BCCI has no inbuilt system of redressal, of players airing their grievances. • In New Zealand, cricketers can approach the Board with the complaint; it will be heard and a decision taken. THE ANSWER: FEWER MEN, MONEY, COMMITMENT • Dilip Vengsarkar, the BCCI’s top talent scout votes for a four-man panel on a full-time basis. ‘‘They should be the best men available for the job, not necessarily from any zone.’’ •Former India captain Bishan Bedi wants just three selectors. ‘‘No harm if all the three are from the same city but they should be men of integrity.’’ — Chandresh Narayanan