Arnold in winter of discontent and doubt

THE new cricket selectors are clearly intent on laying down their own principles, even if it means portraying themselves as pitiless hatchet men. Marvan Atapattu was the first victim of their hard-heartedness. The stylist, to all and sundry, looked the logical successor once the burn of the hot seat had got unberable for Sanath Jayasuriya. Atapattu, whose career originated in the mid-90s., had about the best credentials: deputy skipper of three seasons and a reliability that no present-day batsman of ours could match. The selectors, however, showed they aren't the ones to be swayed by popular sentiments. Their decision on the captaincy has been in public domain too long to make re-telling here superfluous. But a review of events since the appointment of different captains wouldn't be inappropriate. Put to the test for the first time against New Zealand, the new experiment hardly provided any convincing evidence that's it is the best thing. For the first time Sri Lanka was ousted from the final of a one-day tournament at home and shared, 0/0, with a below-strength New Zealand a Test series that should've been won.

Put to the test a second time, the wisdom of shared leadership, positively backfired on the selectors. The astonishing 2/1 triumph of Atapattu's one-day team over the West Indies and the 0/1 loss in the Test series under Hashan Tillekeratne's leadership tells a lot.  

It can be argued that the different outcomes were in different versions of the game _the two genres requiring different leadership qualities. But then the vital requirement remains the same: the ability to inspire your men. Atapattu demonstrated those qualities, his team winning both ODIs from seemingly hopeless situations. Not so the decisive second Test in which Sri Lanka led the West Indies in the first innings, but failed to convert that crucial advantage to victory, losing in the end by a margin that obliterates the contest's earlier closeness.

The selectors will have time till November to mull over on either persisting with their policy of shared leadership or give the whole lot to Atapattu, which is the declared intention of selectors anyway. Should Tillekeratne be persevered with for the home series against England in November, then, obviously that decision would be based on the theory that he's learning the job. There's nothing wrong with that argument, except that the 'student leader' is on the threshold of retirement. Any extension of his term is remote from commonsense and reduces the rebuilding process to a slow-walk.

The second demonstration of the selectors' hard-heartedness, however, has far more pragmatism than their apointments of different captains. Their treatment of Russel Arnold is a clear message that old reputations don't count. A year ago, any suggestion that  Arnold should be relegated to playing in the company of second-stringers would've met with derision. After all, it was only last English summer when the gutsy left-hander took a century off England in the third Test while others meekly fell about him. It has to be remembered that Arnold was thrust in as replacement opener for the floundering Jayasuriya _ and not for first time he fought the good-fight admirably. His contribution may not have pulled the chestnuts from the fire, but one of the greater consolations of that lost series was the reconfirmation that, in Arnold, Sri Lanka had a resolute battler.

A year later, however, Arnold's career lives through a winter of discontent and doubt. It is true that no team can afford to have on board an off-form player for an indefinite period. But sympathetic set  selectors might have pursued with Arnold on the strength of his experience, dating back to Ranatunga's era. Arnold, in fact, has experienced reversals of form in the past, but kinder selectors were loath to discard him; if they did, the waiting period till recall wasn't as long as the present abeyance. His last turn of national duty was in the World Cup of six months ago. The new selectors since have dispensed with him for the Sharjah tournament in April, the home series against New Zealand in May-June and the tour of the West Indies two months ago. The rose garden Arnold walked last summer has turned to one of thorns, gnawed as he is by doubtful thoughts of his future. The period of rejection has been, if you'll pardon an inverse turn of  phraseology, far too long for comfort.

The hard truth

The hard truth is, rejection in November could consign him to the forgotten. It's a cruel prospect for a cricketer whose overall contribution to Sri Lanka cricket hasn't exactly been ordinary. He has three Test centuries to his name and on countless occasions turned a losing cause to triumph. But the selectors won't be budged by emotions of past memory. Their order to Arnold - go play with the second-stringers and prove your worthiness.

And so the reliable regular of a year ago now finds himself one among 31 'A' players preparing for a second-string triangular with India and Pakistan in Colombo this month. He is widely tipped to be captain, the only hand of encouragement he will get from the selectors. Otherwise, he will just have to earn his keep. For one accustomed to the life of a permanent member of the Sri Lanka team and the accompanying fame and fortune, you can't help but pity the predicament Arnold has fallen into.

Selector Aravinda de Silva expressing his thoughts on Arnold's future some weeks ago said, ''A lot of investment has been made in Arnold and you just can't discard him without giving him the opportunities to come back." The opportunities de Silva spoke of turns out to be no more than second-string representation. This might be hard on Arnold personally, but you can't argue against the principle on which his demotion is based. One hopes that Arnold can bring all his combative qualities to bear and find a pathway back to the Sri Lanka team. Should he succeed, he would've learnt to value all the more his permanent status - and will be better for it.

The inclusion of Nuwan Zoysa in the A squad also provides the bowler a chance to regain his lost place. Like Arnold, Zoysa too was long in the permanent ranks until the dismal English tour last summer. He has been rejected since, though, his new-ball potentiality could not have evaporated during the yearlong hiatus. He wasn't quite the same bowler in England last summer, and his rather causal demeanour on the field - and nets - didn't quite help him win a recall. Lest he becomes a forgotten man, Zoysa will surely want to make his presence felt. He ought to see the unavailability of  Prabath Nissanka, recuperating from surgery, in November as the removal of the first hurdle. He now will have to commit himself to the hard work and resolve (virtues that many are quick to say he hasn't) required to win back his lost place.

The new Cricket Board has wisely arranged a heavy second-string international program over the coming months. As their treatment of Arnold reflects, the selectors obviously want to make the demotion of off-form seniors to the A team a guiding principle to future selections. The score books says there's more than just Arnold in troubled form. Sangakkara and Jayewardene clearly enjoy immunity from the axe more on their promising talents than from the consistent contributions expected of nos. 3 and 4 batsmen. It was a lack of consistency in those two spots, the backbone really, that reopened the door for Tillekeratne, at no.5, after a three-year rejection. But he's hardly the right component that would fit any plan with futuristic design. The plight of Arnold, at no.6, has been dealt with. The middle order has been no where near firm ground, which is why our batting destiny has largely depended on the part openers, Atapattu and Jayasuriya, play.

The practice of persisting with failures, albeit of repute, can now be shed: the A team is the place to send them to seek redemption. It won't do any harm to build a healthy reservoir of batsmen to draw from, match by match _ a reservoir with no demarcations of permanent and temporary. If the likes of Michael Vandort, Jehan Mubarak, Ian Daniel, Avishka Gunewardena, Indika de Saram, whoever, have to replace leading lights, whoever, so be it. After all, in modern cricket, any player ought to be good as only his last innings.

More Stories