By T.M.K. Samat
SELECTORS aren't the best of candidates for a popularity poll. No matter how good a job
they do, there's always going to be a lot hypothetical blah about how things could've been
better. It's the nature of the job that makes it so thankless. Selectors, of course, are
knowledgeable people, but human foibles not always will acknowledge this. The job, in
essence, is opinion-based, and it's a fact of life that there's always more than one shade
of opinion to any thing. Hence, not surprisingly, selectors' conclusions are never going
to find universal approval.
It's not quite the job for simple folks like you and me. It's for those with the idle
hours of an unemployed, the foresight of a soothsayer, the brains of a judge and the hide
of an ox. Because all of those qualities are unlikely to be found in many men, the
selectors draw their strength from a sense of oneness. Obviously, not all selectors will
perennially share one opinion. But once the final decisions have been made, as a body they
stand by them; dissenting thoughts are forgotten. Selectors live by the codes of
collective responsibility, and for one of them to express his personal view in public is
considered traitorous, nay sacrilege.
Against this background, the recent resignation of three cricket selectors and not the
entire panel of a panel of five is. well, not cricket. Improbably, chairman selectors T B
Kehelgamuwa and K M Nelson fastened their seat belts while Brendon Kuruppu, Amal Silva and
Kapil Wijegunawardena vacated their seats, reacting angrily to alterations made to their
chosen eleven, consequent to protests by the team management. What this reflects is an
obvious lack of unanimity among the selectors. One suspects there has been a rift in the
committee over a period of time, and the resignations weren't quite a reaction of
spontaneity. More likely it was the end of a tether after a protracted tug-of-war.
The break-up of a successful selection committee, as the on-field results show, is sad.
But, given the palpable lack of unity among the five, it's just as well Kuruppu, Silva and
Wijegunawardena quit _ and so thrust the issue out into the open. Clearly, this is an
admission that the Kehelgamuwa-led committee wasn't working together, a disharmony that
could, with time, have so easily infect the team itself. A factious selection committee is
unhealthy for cricket.
Just as much as the resigning trio will have reasons for their decision, Kehelgamuwa
and Nelson too will have their explanations. The issue is not to prove whose reasons are
right or wrong, but in the numbers. The cardinal principle, nay oath, selectors work by
is: majority view prevails. Kuruppu, Silva and Wijegunawardena were in the majority and
so, Kehelgamuwa and Nelson ought to have followed suit, adhering to code of collective
responsibility. They did not _ and that shows them in poor light. By deciding not to stand
by their fellow-members, their suitability to be selectors will doubtless be queried.
After all, the unwritten requirement of man's finer qualities in a selector is just as
important as adjudging who bats or bowls better.
It is sad the Kehelgamuwa-team had to break up. The historic seven-win run in Test
cricket is partly the selectors' fashioning. Normally, they should've been a proud and
happy band of men, rejoicing in the success of their selections. But their parting of the
ways last Saturday only add credibility to the theory they had been paddling oars in
different directions.
On the surface it seems a simple lack of communication between selectors and
management. Consider. The selectors name the team for the second Test in Kandy, excluding
deputy skipper Marvan Atapattu and Charitha Buddhika. Selectors say both exclusions were
futuristic, claiming batsman Chamara Silva and quick bowler Prabath Nissanka were young
material deserving exposure in the Test environment. The team management differs, saying
dismantling a winning combination wasn't a good thing for team- morale.
That the verbal confrontation should surface on the evening before the match is
strange. Wasn't skipper Jayasuriya and coach Whatmore consulted as normally happens prior
to selections? The one-word is no. The story from here on gets hazy. The selectors say the
team left for Kandy before the selection meeting; they were supposed to leave after it.
The other side admits they departed early only because the chairman, selections had
already said there would be no change to the team of the first Test.
When news of the selection committee's team reached Kandy, Jayasuriya and co.
understandably were furious. They wanted the same eleven of the first Test. No way said
the selectors, or at least three of them. Retorted the team: we're not playing. That's how
Jayasuriya got his eleven out that day. It wasn't the best of ways to resolve the problem,
but significantly, cricket at the time of the crisis was virtually without a governing
authority. The interim committee had been disbanded the week before and the new committee
was officially appointed on Jan.1, the day the dispute broke out.
Whether player-power would've won the day had the interim committee been in firm
control is doubtful. But this much is certain: the interim committee, all government
appointed officials, would not be inhibited by any possible political backlash in passing
judgement. The issue's principles, not personalities, would've been their dictates. At
issue is a dispute over the selection of two players _ a dispute that is as old as the
game. Jayasuriya and co.'s threat not to take the field unless those two players were
recalled would not have been tolerated by any authority dedicated to orderly and
disciplined management.
Mercifully, the Test match went ahead and was won by Jayasuriya's men. But that doesn't
absolve them of their crime. Between intent (not to play) and commit there's little
difference. To hold the country to ransom is, to put it charitably, indiscipline in
extreme. The threat smacks of imperious arrogance _ a take it or leave it attitude. The
incident begs for an inquiry, and dispensing fines to or demanding apologies from those
responsibile wouldn't be inappropriate.
It has to be mentioned, though, in mitigation, it is so unlike Jayasuriya to be
involved in an episode of this sort. The popular perception of him is one of an amiable
young man with polite, pleasing ways. Apparently, the omission of especially the team's
deputy skipper raised a few hackles in the team _ based on the fear that if the team's
no.2 is dispensable then security is even less for the rest. It's a potentially dangerous
situation, fuelled as it is by avarice and selfishness. Jayasuriya had no option but to
side with his men, though the threat to down tools was too extreme an over-reaction. It is
regrettable, however, the manager Ajit Jayasekera and coach Dav Whatmore allowed a bad
situation to get worse. It is understandable that they should be in sympathy of the
players' cause. That is the right principle to work by, but certainly not if it even hints
of fostering players revolt. Cricket has had enough of troubles at the administrative
level, as Jayasekera and Whatmore know, that the last thing the game wants is a rift
between players and administrators. Such problems can cause the game incalculable damage.
One reason why team management exists is to help maintain player-administrator harmony.
The only redeeming feature of this unsavoury story is that it was based on principles
and not personalities. You can't fault with Jayasuriya and co.'s stand. They stood for the
continuation of a winning combination, preserving team spirit, clinching the series and
continuing with the winning sequence, seventh after the Asgiriya success. Galle will
probably bring up win no.8 _ all of which leaves the team with a confidence required for
the sterner battles ahead this year.
The selectors' thoughts, at least the trio who resigned, looked beyond the day. The
season ahead is going to be the toughest ever the team will be subjected to. In April will
be the Sharjah triangular; late April to mid July, three Tests against England and
triangular, including India. In August, the Asian Test final versus Pakistan followed by a
Test series with Bangladesh. October through to March will be the most demanding:
three-Test and one-day series against South Africa in S.Africa, then fly directly to
Australia for three-Test one-day series and fly back to S.Africa for the World Cup. Any
selection committee can't ignore the wear and tear entailed of a rigorous six-month
schedule. Obviously, they will want to build a reserve of players in the likely event of
injuries or sickness to those on duty. It makes sense to use available opportunity to give
exposure to the fringe players.
To fly out inexperienced players as replacements is to be short-sighted, given that our
domestic cricket hardly offers the sort of quality of competition that is conducive to
rearing Test cricketers. Neither are under 25 internationals played nearly enough. So, the
opportunity to groom emerging cricketers lies only with the Test matches _ and the ones
suitable for experimenting are fast running out. With the West Indies series clinched in
the second Test, the third was ideal for experimentation. But the temptation to go for a
whitewash was too great to resist.
The first Zimbabwe Test was won with such ease that it was a reasonable assumption that
a team without Atapattu and Buddhika would be safe from defeat. Chamara de Silva, who hit
a century against Zimbabwe in a side game, and Prabath Nissanka, believed to have better
potential than Buddhika, were included so that they could come be handy replacements if
needed in England, S.Africa or Australia. Certainly, de Silva was not going to be a threat
to Atapattu for permanency. The difference between Buddhika and Nissanka isn't much, and
Nissnaka's inclusion could only have encouraged a healthy competition.
The reasons advanced by both the players and the selectors were valid. On reflection,
all that was required was for the two sides to hear out each other and sort things out in
the privacy of the selection room. That didn't happen, largely because no interim
committee was firmly in place _ a lapse caused by the sport ministry's thoughtless and
hasty decision to disband the previous interim committee. Clearly, a string of unfortunate
events conspired to bring about this sad state of affairs. One hopes, the incident is
safely buried,lest the long intruding hand of politics resurrects it and brings it to the
players' dressing room.
(Since the above article was written, the sports ministry appointed an entirely new
selection committee. The new selectors: Michael Tissera (Chairman), Mahesh Goonetillake,
Don Arunasiri, Roger Wijesuriya)
By Daya Sahabandu
The West Indians they say are natural crickets. They take to cricket like ducks to
water. It is also said to be the mecca of cricket (where cricket is worshipped the most) A
country which has produced some of the worlds greatest cricketers and in Sobers, possibly
the greatest, ever, their decline in cricket is unimaginable. Under Clive Lloyd's
captaincy, the West Indies started an unbeaten record in a Test series which lasted for
fifteen years where they dominated world cricket with a galaxy of pace bowlers. During the
era, Clive Lloyd proved to the rest of the world that spin bowling was not necessary to
win Test matches as whatever they wicket he was faced with he used only part-time spinners
and that too only to rest his regular pace bowlers. The strength of his pace bowling could
be gauged by the fact that when once, he was asked as to which two would be given the new
ball of the four pace bowels on show, playing in the match (he had bowlers like Roberts,
Holdings, Garner and Croft) his reply was it really did not matter.
This goes to prove that all his four fast bowlers lined up for the match were equally
good at using the new ball. What a compliment to them that statement of Lloyd must have
been. Richards taking over the captaincy carried the good work with the unbeaten record
intact. The West Indies suffered their first series defeat under the captaincy of
Richardson when they were beaten in the Caribbean two match to one by Australia, under
Mark Taylor. That was the starting point in the decline of West Indies cricket.
The present team suffered a whitewash at the hands of Sri Lanka in the recently
concluded Test series which shows the standard Sri Lanka cricket has come up to and it is
also an eye opener to West Indies cricket. The brilliance of Brian Lara in the Test series
failed to prevent the whitewash and other than his performance there was hardly anything
on show.
True Sarwan showed up that he has future material despite still being without a Test
century and Hooper tried his best at times to prevent the sinking ship.
Sri Lanka has emerged as one of the greatest Test playing nations in the world and it
appears as if only Australia and South Africa are in front and that too only in their own
den. To overcome this advantage, the Sri Lankan batsmen will have to get used to playing
genuine quick bowling on fast bouncy wickets. This, Iam sure, will be vital in our
performance in the World Cup 2003 due to be held in South Africa. Any other country, I am
certain that Sri Lanka can meet on level terms. In Vaas and Muralitharan Sri Lanka has two
bowlers of very high quality.
Vaas reminds me of the great Australian Alan Davidson bowling left arm over the wicket
in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Along with Richie Benaud Davidson destroyed many a
side to win Test. Matches for Australia which is now being done by Vaas and Muralitharan
for Sri Lanka. Add to this our brilliant stroke makers and Sri Lanka cricket is definitely
on the rise.
By T M K Samat
THE INTERIM Committee of the Sri Lanka Cricket Board is to hit the jackpot, if not for
itself, certainly for the country's tourist industry. Colombo is "seventy percent
certain'' of hosting the Test-nations ICC Trophy championship, the next best thing to the
four-yearly World Cup.
The third biennial one-day knockout competition in September was up for grabs after
appointed hosts India withdrew over a row with the taxmen. "We were offered the event
and presently talking terms with the ICC. At this point I can say it's seventy percent in
our favour,'' said Vijaya Malalasekera, chairman Interim Committee.
Initially there were two other countries in the race, Australia and Sharjah. But the
ACB has said they aren't interested, probably because the climate is yet wintry in
September, the date set by India. The ICC, it is believed, is disinclined to give the
event to Sharjah because of the city's suspected involvement in the match-fixing scandal.
Hence the offer to Sri Lanka by the ICC.
The ICC are expected to pick up all of the championship's tabs _ and take all of the
revenue from the sale of TV rights and sponsorship. The Sunday Leader understands for its
troubles Sri Lanka has been offered half the gates revenue. But the board prefers to be
paid a guarantee fee because gate receipts, especially for all-foreign matches, are not
expected to add up to much. Malalasekera confirmed negotiations were on but didn't divulge
the amount asked for.
"We are not seeing this as a money-making exercise.rather as a great chance to
lift the image of the country. The event no doubt will have a world audience. And with
nine visiting teams, officials and large numbers of camp followers accompanying the teams,
tourism will obviously get a hefty boost,'' said Malalasekera. "Even if eventually
there's not going to be any money in it for us, it yet would've contributed to the
country's economy.''
Profits from the event will be channelled to fund the ICC's ambitious program to
globalize the sport through development projects in non-Test countries and anywhere the
game is yet taking root.
Clearly, the world body for cricket has a healthy respect for Sri Lanka's
organizational skills. The manner the interim committee of 2000 conducted the 54-match,
16-team Junior World Cup tournament was acknowledged as the best ever conducted, including
the one staged by Australia. Ross Turner, the then ICC Development manager, in tribute
said that Colombo "showcased the under19 World Cup for other countries to emulate''.
A key member of the organizing committee of that event was Kushil Gunasekera, currently
serving on the interim committee.
"We have the proven blueprint of the Junior World Cup_ all we have to do is to put
it into effect again. The matches will be a lot less than the U.19 World Cup, but with all
the Test countries in the competition the expectations are going to be higher,'' said
Gunasekera. "But with the experience of two years ago I am sure we can put together a
successful event.''
The entire 50-over knock-out tournament, from Sept.12-29, will be staged in Colombo, as
required by the ICC. The world body also wants all matches to be held in two stadiums; the
SSC and the Khettarama stadium are the likely venues.
