ON TEST  SELECTORS

Only a test cricketer is qualified to select another test cricketer.  So goes the candid logic. Extremely convincing, indeed. By the same token of analogy  should an alleged criminal be judged only by a judge with criminal antecedents? By the way, should a cardiac specialist be a former heart patient himself? Who should do the post-mortem on dead bodies?

BCCI has taken another step ahead. The national selector should not be more than 60 years of age. Why 60 and not 55 or 65 has not been specified yet. This pronouncement means that men like Sunil Gavaskar and Bishen Bedi are not qualified to be Indian national selectors at present. Probably some powerful lobbies feel that Sunil having crossed 60 has become senile. More likely, that ‘brash’ Bishan cannot be pressurized.

Now the question that crops up is very simple. If a selector is considered to be too old at 60, what about the administrators themselves?

In the 85 years of India’s participation in test cricket, this season for the first time ever the national selectors are being selected on the basis of applications received in response to an advertisement. Very fair, no doubt. In this system, every eligible candidate was given a fair chance to submit his credentials.

But then again a simple query arises. Are the officials, who are picking the test selectors, former test players themselves? Since the BCCI wants former players to select the current international cricketers, it stands to reason that the test selectors themselves should also be appointed by men who have played for India.

 Earlier for decades the national selectors were appointed by the powers-that-be without any definite guidelines. Every nomination or appointment depended upon the whims and fancies of the respective zones. Invariably enough, most national selectors would be malleable men who could be easily influenced.

To escape from that ridiculous system, the current BCCI administrators thought of a system to rectify that scenario. Very praiseworthy indeed. But then the present system hardly reveals any advancement on the previous one. BCCI should realize that a selector should be a man of integrity, of knowledge, of sincerity. He must have the courage of conviction and be willing to devote time and attention to his job tirelessly. Very important, he must be totally unbiased and think of the national interest first, last and always.

How many tests or international matches the selector has played cannot be the primary concern. His age is of no consequence. The man’s character and personality are of paramount importance for this very responsible job.

Hundreds of ridiculous instances concerning our national selectors over the years can be cited. Here are a few that would give the reader a chance to know the kind of men we have had as our national selectors.

 Raj Singh Dungarpur had never represented India but was almost single-handedly responsible for a 16 year old son of a low-profile Marathi poet to make his test debut in 1989. In a span of about 25 years, SRT went on to erase all possible batting records. Without Rajbhai’s selectorial wisdom, Sachin’s advent at the international level would have been delayed. Former first-class cricketer Raj Singh Dungarpur did more for cricket than any Indian test cricketer or BCCI administrator ever did. Non test cricketer Raj Singh had every conceivable quality a selector should possess.

Manindra Nath Bechu Dutta Ray had no credentials as a player. But he was a first-class umpire with the critical eye of a gem expert. He was the person who pitchforked the young Sardar from Amritsar into the test team in 1967 at Eden Gardens. Since that day the left-arm spinner went on to become one of the finest left-arm spinners in world cricket. Dutta Ray showed little prejudice at the national level, but was highly biased when it came to local club cricket. If any young, deserving player from Bengal aspired to play for India then he had to play for Bechu Babu’s Sporting Union Club in Calcutta.

On the other extreme, we have had former test cricketer-turned national selector Ramesh Saxena who did not even know the names of the players he helped to select. Former test stars Dattu Phadkar and Pankaj Roy, by turns represented east zone in the selection panel in the 1970s. Neither ever bothered to watch east zone at play.

On the 1936 tour of England, Baqa Jilani was chosen for the final XI on the morning of the Oval test because he willingly insulted and abused CK Nayudu publicly on the specific instruction of his captain Vizzy! Shute Banerjee, who was way ahead in performance and potential, was sidelined from the playing XI because he refused to carry out such a vile order.

CK Nayudu on his part as a national selector acted in a very high-handed manner to omit Vinoo Mankad from the 1952 touring team to England. Mankad was at the time the leading all-rounder in the world and had just helped India to win her first-ever test victory with 12 wickets at Chepauk. Mankad had gone to UK to play in the Lancashire Leagues when the Indian test team was to be selected for the forthcoming tour of UK. Chief selector CK Nayudu insisted that Mankad should come back to India to take part in a trial match! Mankad could not come to India as he was engaged with his club and would have lost his contract. Promptly CK Nayudu dropped him from the squad!

After India lost the first test match at Leed’s, the manager of the team Pankaj Gupta cabled Mankad in Lancashire at the time to join the team for the 2^nd test at Lord’s. Gupta did not even bother to ask the selectors for permission. As it transpired, in that test Mankad dominated the proceedings in such a manner that the test match came to be known as ‘Mankad’s Test’. Mankad with 72 and 184 runs as well as 5 wickets was simply superlative. Just goes to show that a non-test player’s vision (Pankaj Gupta’s) was far superior to that of CK Nayudu.

Highly principled captain Polly Umrigar resigned from the test captaincy on serious differences with the selectors just before the start of the Chennai test in 1958-59. For the 1959 tour the selectors opted for DK Gaekwad as captain who was not even a regular India player at the time. India had just Surendranath and Ramakant Desai as genuine pacers for the 4-month tour of England! The series was lost 0-5. The national selection committee included former test cricketers like Lala Amarnath, C Ramaswami and LP Jai with Dutta Ray, a first-class umpire and non-cricketer.

For India’s first-ever official tour of England in 1932 the Indian selectors opted for the Maharaja of Porbandar Natwarsinhji, who supposed to ‘have more Rolls-Royce cars than runs’ as a cricketer. His deputy was the Maharaja of Limbdi Ghyanashyamsinhji, another man of very modest cricketing acumen.

 But Natwarsinhji was magnanimous enough to drop himself and ask the far more deserving ‘commoner’ CK Nayudu to lead the team in the inaugural test at Lord’s. This generous gesture of Natwarsinhji has been lost in the footnotes of India’s cricketing annals. What the prominent former players and national selectors (Kanga, Hosie and Ashan ul Haq) were unable to do, was done in a relaxed manner by the designated captain himself. This is indeed unique in world cricket.

During his tenure between 1969 and 1972, chief selector Vijay Merchant, well beyond the age of 60, showed the gumption to select young talents and the future of Indian cricket blossomed. Players of the calibre of Sunil Gavaskar, Gundappa Viswanath and Eknath Solkar, among others, came into limelight with the ‘old and senile’ Merchant holding forth in the selection committee meetings. It is not a man’s age but his worth that makes the difference.

Ghulam Ahmed (61), Chandu Borde (49) and Bishan Bedi (37) belonged to  different age-brackets and eras when they were entrusted with the selection of the 1983 world cup squad. Such was India’s disinterest in one-dayers at the time that selectors from east and central zones (Pankaj Roy and Chandu Sarwate) did not even bother to attend the selection committee meeting! This was actually a blessing in disguise for Bedi, Borde and Ghulam Ahmed. The three very sincere, unprejudiced minds chose ‘horses for courses’ and the rest is history, as the cliché goes. Just goes to show that when India first won a world championship actually 3 national selectors did the splendid job, although they were 5 in number. The emphasis cannot be on the number of selectors. Nor on one’s date of birth.

Today Indian cricket is at a crossroads. The caravan has travelled for 85 years since 1932 participating in 500 tests around the globe. Unfortunately India’s performance abroad has not done justice to its actual potential. We have won a mere 11 series away from home including one in Bangladesh and another in Zimbabwe. 41 victories have been achieved on foreign soil whereas 87 on the familiar pitches at home. This poor statistic needs to be altered for India to earn respect abroad as a test team.

 Ironically Indian test captains who have done very well abroad have always been deprived of their due recognition. Ajit Laxman Wadekar led India to two magnificent series victories against West Indies in the Caribbean and against England in their own den in 1971. Yet he is always regarded as a ‘lucky’ captain whatever that means! He is more remembered for the disastrous 1974 England tour.

Another under-rated India captain is the mercurial Kapil Dev Nikhanj. After the 1983 world cup triumph, he led India to a most convincing 2-0 test series victory in England in 1986. His inspirational leadership never earned any kudos. Why are we so miserly in praising his leadership skills?

Similar is the case with Rahul Dravid. He happens to be the sole India captain who has led India to three series victories abroad against strong opponents. Deputising for Sourav Ganguly at Multan in 2004, Rahul made the initial foray into Pakistan territory till the captain-designate Ganguly came round to seal the series triumph at Rawalpindi.

After taking over, Rahul’s leadership paid immediate dividends in terms of series victories against strong oppositions on their own backyard. He defeated Brain Lara’s Calypso men in 2005-06 and the following year upset the apple-cart of Michael Vaughan’s England. Yet the name of Rahul Dravid hardly figures when leadership skills are discussed. Is it because of his low profile and his diffident nature?

Today with Anil Kumble as the navigator and Virat Kohli in the driver’s seat, the trend of India’s performance overseas requires urgent rectification. Hopefully the encouraging results of the innumerable ‘home’ tests this season would not make us complacent. Let the duo get the appropriate support from our national selectors and help India to reverse our statistical record away from home. 

Between 1932 and 1952 India would have just 3 selectors to do the job of selecting the national team. Then from 1953 began the trend of having 4 selectors. This pattern continued till 1970. From 1971 the national selection committee comprised 5 men, one each from the respective zones.

Hence the exact number of selectors is not of primary concern. Nor their age or the number of test matches they have played for India. The principal issue is to have men of integrity, sincerity and knowledge. Men who are unprejudiced and would do their duty with the national interest in mind. Without fear or favour.