In the aftermath of Sri Lankan Cricket’s unprecedented whitewash at the hands of the world champions Australia here in this emerald island, the high handedness of the national selectors in persisting with an unfounded theory of experience at the expense of giving due weightage on ability has been exposed in a crystal clear manner. The sadder part is that the Herculean effort of Muttiah Muralitharan whose rich bag of 27 series scalps was not sufficient to prevent a whitewash. The post series comment of his compatriot Shane Warne that if either of them manages to capture in excess of 25 wickets, then that team which in all probability would carry the series honours must be echoing in the Lankan camp. Murali can destroy any test nation single handedly bar the Aussies as was proven last week.

The selectors who lamented on experience included Aviska Gunawardena for the second test. The out of the blues inclusion did more harm to the aggressive top order batsman reputed for his limited over exploits on his chances of making a decent comeback. Aviska was given the cold shoulder the very next game. Could a justification be made on this type of criterion? Another belated choice, which would remain unanswered, is Rangana Herath. Whilst young Kaushal Lokuarachchi was given a raw deal another bright prospect in Niroshan Bandaratillake is still left in the lurch. All three possess the ability to play a genuine support role to Murali and Chaminda Vaas. Nevertheless, the national selectors seem to be having their own agenda, which has baffled many cricket experts.

The additional burden cast on Kumar Sangakkara has had a definite impact on his batting. The talented 26year old being made to work around the clock went through a miserable patch with the willow. It is ironic that even the world champions Australia do not cast such a burden on the dangerous Adam Gilchrist who comes in well down the order with the exception of emergency situations. Promising Prasanna Jayawardena is yet to be given a decent chance.

One thing that is certain is that the present bunch of selectors do not have the correct vision to drive forward Sri Lankan cricket. The inevitable outcome of such a disastrous performance should have led to the selection panel tendering its resignation promptly, rather than expecting the skipper to step down, which in any event was foreseeable to a prudent minded person even before the commencement of the all important Aussie tour. Sadly in Sri Lanka the gentleman’s game is alien to these considerations.

Mahela Jayawardena, whose lacklustre batting exploits and fielding endeavours drew much criticism yet remains as one of the island nation’s premier batsmen alongside the technically sound Marvan Atapattu and the black panther Sanath Jayasuriya, back in the fold playing in his accustomed flamboyant style. Tillekaratne Dilshan although amongst runs does not still have the correct attitude to play test cricket. The way in which he batted in the second innings of the final test to state the least was atrocious and a voluntary act of submitting to vulnerability. The attitude and temperament was what paved the way for the Aussie success. The Australians managed to dig itself out from troubled plights in all three tests whilst the Lankans did right the opposite.

The complaint lodged by match referee Chris Broad on Muralitharan’s bowling action more particularly the so called purported ‘doosra’ delivery has to be viewed with sympathy on the part of the frustration of the European segment in the game. Interestingly it was the now retired Darren Gough who first brought into light this figment of imagination of a delivery going straight through only a few months ago prior to the English tour of the sub continent. The Aussies were soon to pounce and the media went to town on this concern together with their Ashes bunny.

Murali is going to overhaul Courtney Walsh this month and is destined to get there before his compatriot Shane Warne and would be on top of cricket’s bowling world record in the all time list. Warney admires the extraordinary talents of Murali and has been open about such fact. However, a pompous aging journalist made a futile attempt to challenge Murali’s credibility based on his boast of witnessing the game on all cricketing continents for decades. No one took him seriously.

IT might not be the most polite thing to be saying presently. But it’s a good thing Sri Lanka cricket was subjected to a first ever whitewash on home soil. This, confessedly, seems as rude as partying no sooner than the cortege has left. The intention, though, isn’t to rejoice in the sadness of seven days ago.

The grief caused by the passing away of a 22-year-old pride of Sri Lanka cricket, of not conceding a home series whitewash, after all, isn’t something you shake off lightly. There’s a lot to mourn the annihilation of the long held reputation of invincibility on home shores — a reputation that even Steve Waugh’s world-beaters were compelled to acknowledge by their 0/1 loss of the 1999 series. That debutante Test captain Ricky Ponting’s team, arguably not quite yet as formidable as his predecessor’s, should be the first in the world to whip us at every turn in our own backyard is… well, a bit like being shamed before your family.

Yet, I repeat, the whitewash is a good thing. To explain why, let’s survey the calamity with emotions left behind at the door. Even before the teams had arrived in Colombo for the third Test, the series was parceled up and ready for dispatch to Australia. Sri Lanka, as captain Hashan Tillekeratne remarked, had only pride to play for. That pride, as it turned out, was torn to tatters.

Naturally, a third consecutive defeat is heartbreaking. But had our last pair survived the final eight balls to force a draw, or even won the Test, which wasn’t such a far-flung prospect on the fourth morning, then, the whitewash would’ve been staved off and the pain eased — but the need to find remedies procrastinated. The series defeat would’ve been viewed in rosy tint. We would have tended not to make light of the loss to, well, the world champions, and believed that the coming tour to Zimbabwe would prove that our cricket’s health isn’t so critical as to require catalytic changes. The whitewash, however, compels a view from a different perspective.

It was patently clear for some seasons that Sri Lanka cricket was as good as living on borrowed time: in 15 Tests, from the 2002 England tour to the just concluded series, only one win was managed, over England last year. Eight were lost and six drawn. This surely represents red alert, the sort of signal that flashed after the ’99 World Cup debacle, which the Sidath Wettimuny-led selection committee promptly reacted to. They opened the doors to a fresh generation by making some dramatic changes, stripping Ranatunga and Aravinda de Silva of their leadership titles. The world-renowned duo was also ejected from the one-day squad; as well, veterans Mahanama and Tillekeratne were shut out of both the Test and one-day sides. Their boldness might not have won universal approval, but as triumph followed triumph, including a record sequence of ten successive Test wins, their youth policy earned acclaim. But succeeding selection committees apparently viewed the job through political lenses — a case of showing that they knew better than their predecessors.

The de Alwis-led committee, for instance, chose a ham-fisted way. In their time, between the 2002 April-May English tour to the March 2003 World Cup, the door to the Sri Lanka team dressing room was a revolving one — the Gamages, Mubaraks, Hashanthas and Pulasthies walked in and out. Seemingly, there was something of a mentality of "our players" and ‘’their (previous selectors) players" _ and no good were done to team or player. But enough of history.

We were talking of the whitewash being a good thing. Yes, it compels the selectors to bite the bullet and make changes with the future in mind. A study of our 1996 World Cup squad would show how scant attention to the future has been. Six from 1996 played in one or more Tests in the concluded series: Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Muralitheran, Vaas, Dharmasena, and Tillekeratne. It has to be quickly added, though, that none of their inclusion were on charity — it was earned. But the point here is: when more than half, whose beginnings date back to the mid-90s, remain indispensable members of the Test side nearly a decade on, then, surely a crisis looms, closer home than horizon. An odd win here, a draw there didn’t quite serve as wake up call previously. But as alerts go, the whitewash is the fire brigade _ bells, engine water hose and all — screaming at cricket’s burning door.

At least one flame didn’t need firemen to extinguish. Incumbent skipper Tillekeratne saved the selectors the embarrassment of sacking him. Whether Tillekeratne’s resignation was backroom maneuvered is difficult to establish. But since his surprising appointment was made by the same wise men, an arrangement for his resignation seems plausible. But Tillekeratne added a virtual rider to his resignation: he wants to concentrate on keeping his place as batsman. And backed his claim with two typically obdurate innings last week. In the end, that didn’t influence the outcome. But that doesn’t mean he is without value in the future.

Yet, the need now is to build a future, and that requires the ushering of a new generation of players — at the expense of seniors. Whether Kaluperuma, de Silva and company would take a leaf off Wettimuny’s book is difficult to predict. But this much is certain: a better time and opportunity can’t be found to re-blood than next month’s series against Zimbabwe.

Atapattu’s captaincy is pretty much a foregone conclusion. If the selectors commit to a policy of rebuilding, as they should, then some of the seniors must necessarily stay home and new faces tour Zimbabwe. Of course, there can’t be a wholesale change, as the chosen team, theoretically, has to be good enough to win. Asking Jayasuriya to sit out this tour might be drastic, but such a decision has a worthy explanation. Adding three Tests to the more than 80 accumulated by Jayasuriya would, in future’s interest, be of less value than opening the door to one more newcomer who might just turn out to be a star, like Dilshan did when he debuted with a century in the 2000/01 Zimbabwe tour. The other seniors that look stay-home candidates are Dharmasena, Tillekeratne and Kaluvitharne, who will have little to complaint should Jayasuriya’s name be on the same list.

Getting off the conveyor belt that modern cricket is, wouldn’t in fact be bad a thing. It would give the seniors, weary of mind and body, time-off to re-gather thoughts, examine and rectify technical flaws and generally take stock of their careers. Of course, some careers will be at risk should emerging players prove they deserve to be persevered with. But that’s the way the cricket’s dice turns.

Without Jayasuriya, admittedly, the batting won’t be the same. But then it’s not that as if Jayasuriya has always been a surefire success. In fact, in the times he’s gone cheaply, the batting has been thrown into panic. His presence has a huge psychological bearing on the rest — a dependence that is unhealthy. Zimbabwe, no Australia, is an opportunity to try and snap that Jayasuriya-dependent habit; without the maestro would mean the others create their own inspiration and carry the burdens of responsibility themselves.

A batting lineup without Jayasuriya and Tillekeratne isn’t unpromising anyway: Atapattu, Sangakkara, Samaraweera, Jayewardene and Dilshan. All have more than one Test century against their name, so their capabilities are unquestionable. They’ll have to make a habit of translating those capabilities to big scores, something they’ve failed to do. As well, it would prepare Sri Lanka cricket better for life after Jayasuriya and company. Of course, it’s not as uncertain as life without Muralitheran, but you don’t want to double your future troubles.

The whitewash demands the induction of the likes of Mubaraks, VanDorts, Daniels, Kandambis and Mahroofs. They don’t quite inspire promise in the way Ranatunga, Aravinda de Silva, Mahanama or Gurusinha did in their emerging days. Some critics would prefer not to gamble with newcomers, at the expense of seniors, but rebuilding is a process of trial-and-error. For too long that process has been kept on hold; a look at the teams of India and Pakistan show how much of rebuilding they have done. The Pathans, Balajis, Parwars and Patels of India and the Samis, Umars and Hameeds of Pakistan, not long ago might’ve been in the anonymous multitude seeking Jayasuriya’s autograph. Today they are ready to do battle with the blaster himself — because our cricket lived on borrowed time. The whitewash might be a good thing after all.

SRI Lanka tennis make another bid to achieve its long-held ambition of Davis Cup promotion at next week’s Group Four Asian Zone tournament in Jordan.

The island’s four-member team spent last week in Bombay putting the finishing touches to their preparation under SLTA’s specially appointed Indian coach Enrico Pepino, guru to India’s Grand Slam winners, Mahesh Bhupathy and Leander Paes. The expenses of the Bombay preparation as well as participation in Jordan are borne from Aggreko’s recent Rs.5million development fund. The Sri Lanka team flew out to Amman on April 2 for April 5-11 competition.

The four-member team includes 16-year-old Royal schoolboy and defending National champion, Franklin Emmanuel, veteran Rohan de Silva (31 years), Rajiv Rajapakse (24) and US-based Renouk Wijemanne (22). Lasantha Fernando, a Davis Cup player of the 60s and 70s, will be non-playing captain while SLTA Assistant Secretary, Irshad Othman, goes as manager.

The SLTA selectors have placed faith on experience this time round. Last year Sri Lanka banked on youth, including two schoolboys, Emmanuel and Harshana Godamanne — a decision that backfired as the island failed to qualify for the play-off for Group Three promotions despite home advantage. Vietnam and Oman qualified for promotion in Colombo. Godamanne is unavailable for selection this year due to studies. Rather than fill his place with the likes of Amrit Rupasinghe or S Nishendran, both schoolboys, the selectors opted for Wijemanne on the strength of his experience in US tennis.

De Silva, an engineer with Airbus Industries, made his Davis Cup debut in 1989 and ranks the most experienced. Rajapakse counts three Davis Cup appearances, in 1997, 2002 and ’03 while Wijemanne played in 1999 and 2001 and Emmanuel in 2002 and ’03.

Once a Group 2 nation in the world’s most prestigious team event, Sri Lanka slid to the lowest level in the 90s. ‘’It is important for the future that we work ourselves back to Group 2. That is, however, some distance away; for the time being we have to focus on getting to Group 3, which is within our reach _ but something we haven’t reached owing to the neglect shown to development in the 90s," said SLTA president Suresh Subramaniam. ‘’In recent years we’ve invested a lot in the effort to get promotion, and I am confident the returns aren’t far off."

The team has come under the eye of the reputed coach Pepino since late last year. After a series of rigorous trials, the chosen four-man squad has been under intensive training since mid-February in Colombo. In their weeklong training stint in Bombay, the team played practice matches against some Davis Cup players of India, which competes at the highest level alongside big guns like the USA and Australia. ‘’In Bombay they would’ve pitted their skills against players above their level _ an experience that hopefully would have a positive impact on their performances in Jordan," said manager Othman, a senior executive at Amana Securities Ltd.

Eleven countries will be competing for two places in next year’s Group Three Davis Cup competition. The 11 teams are Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iraq and host Jordan. The eleven countries will be placed in two groups. After a round robin within each group, the top two teams of each group play-off for the two promotion places. — TMKS

St. Peter’s College, Bambalapitiya registered as the champions in the circuit athletic meet for the third consecutive year which concluded recently at the Sugathadas Stadium.

In a thrilling & exciting feat of achievements the Peterites were selected as the overall champions in all groups.

Hashan Jayathilake was adjudged as the under 13 best athlete.

Ranil Jayawardena walked away with the under 15 champion athlete trophy.

Shamal Gunawardana emerged as the champion athlete in the under 16 events.

Dushan Dharmasiri showed a splendid performance to clinch the under 21 best athlete trophy.

In addition Jeevaratnam Jayathan Sri Ruban registered first in the 100 metres & 200 metres under 21 events.

Peterite 4 x 100 relay team emerged champions.

Peterites achieved the highest number of points of 233 to become overall champions (Junior, Senior & Relay championship)