In team selection, skipper must have the final say
Australia, New Zealand and England, however, empower the selector to be involved in picking the playing side
Ahigh-powered meeting involving India’s cricket captain, vice-captains for the different formats, chief coach, chief selector, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) CEO and members of the Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administrators took place in Hyderabad on Wednesday. What transpired has not been made public.
Ostensibly, the agenda was to review the recent tour of England and plan for the upcoming series against Australia. Prickly issues perhaps, but hardly those that can be categorised in the Official Secrets Act.
One understands that all attendees were sworn to secrecy as recent leaks in the media — especially about selection of players — had shown the cricket establishment in unsavoury colours. This is reasonable ground to remain mum perhaps, predicated on the belief that the matter was indeed discussed.
How to deal with players out of favour is among the two contentious issues that have cropped up recently, the other being whether a selector, apart from having a say in the squad, should also become party to picking the playing eleven.
Both are important matters but can’t be seen in black or white. Nevertheless, with stakes in Indian cricket extraordinarily high — for careers of players as well as how the team performs — these need to be tackled urgently and sensibly.
This issue cropped up when Karun Nair (part of the Test squad in England but didn’t play a single match), was dropped from the ongoing Test series against West Indies. Nair claimed he hadn’t been informed by the selectors the reason for his ouster. Opening batsman Murali Vijay, who was dropped after two Tests in England, added more grist to the mill by making a similar claim. However, chief selector, MSK Prasad, counterclaimed that both players had been spoken to by the selector present in England.
From the outside, it is impossible to judge who is right. It could be that the selector conveyed the decision in a manner that was lost on the player. Or perhaps the player, highstrung as he would be when failing or being benched for long, missed the message completely.
In either case, this highlights the need for precise communication in such matters. Picking players is the prerogative of the selectors, but if it is in compliance with best practices in handling talent sensitively, it stymies dissent.
Most struggling players sense that their time could be up and only want the dent in pride and uncertainty of the future to be less painful. A clear, empathetic approach sends all the right signals.
The other issue, of a selector being co-opted along with the team management to pick the playing eleven, is more complex as it could possibly infringe on the chain of command, which, in turn, could have grave repercussions on the field.
The idea itself is not novel. Australia, New Zealand and England empower the selector to be involved in picking the playing side. But results have been mixed. In recent years, it hasn’t worked well for Australia.
However, England reaped rich rewards when new selector Ed Smith put his weight behind Jos Buttler, who emerged as the pivotal player in their Test wins this summer, especially against Virat Kohli’s No. 1 ranked team.
The practice in India so far has worked in silos. The selectors choose the squad, and the team management decides on which eleven players will take the field. While setbacks overseas haven’t been mitigated, this system has worked rather well.
So is there a need for Indian cricket to adopt the system prevailing in Australia, England etc?
There are pros and cons. A selector might not find much space provided by a powerful combination of captain and coach like, say, Virat Kohli and Ravi Shastri. On the other hand, a strong selector might override a young, newly- appointed captain, who is not a megastar.
How robust is the system put in place is the key. But rather than take an ad hoc decision, it would be worthwhile to have a committee of past and present stalwarts debate whether a change can help Indian cricket become stronger.
Personally, I think the Indian system still has merit, allowing selectors an informal, rather than a structured, role in identifying players who can be of value in a match.
In my opinion, captaincy is paramount in cricket. The prevailing system puts him (and, by extension, the team management) at the centre of matters, rather than as subject to external influences.
If there is evidence of mala fide intent in the captain, the board has recourse to make a change. Otherwise, the captain lives and perishes by the results he produces.
In which case, it’s only fair that he has his say. Ayaz Memon is a senior journalist who writes on sport and other issues The views expressed are personal