Do tails wag dogs?

Prem Panicker

The story -- perhaps apocryphal -- is told of how, once, the national selectors were engaged in intense debate, stretching well into the second hour, when then captain Nawab Mansur Ali Khan of Pataudi walked into the meeting.

Tossing a slip of paper onto the table in front of the chairman of selectors, 'Tiger' said, "Sorry I am late, gentlemen, it was unavoidable. Meanwhile, here is the team I want" -- and out he went again.

That was then. It was an age when, prior to the start of a series, the selectors would pick a squad of 15 of 16, hand it over to the captain, and go back home -- where they would remain, till the next series brought with it the next exercise in team selection.

We live in a different age, one where the national selectors pick teams Test by Test, ODI by ODI, and where they even deign to tell the batsmen where they should bat in the order. Mercifully, it hasn't gotten to where they spell out who should bowl from which end and for how long -- but we will get there, never fear.

The charitable view would be to say that such involvement stems from a love for the game and a desire to see results. The not so charitable -- and I must confess that on this issue, charity is not uppermost in my mind -- would say that this comes from a desire to hold more frequent selection meetings, because that way, they can get their allowances and airfares and five star comforts and 'one day before one day after' payments even more regularly.

Whatever. We learnt, not so long ago, that then captain Sachin Tendulkar had asked for an off spinner, arguing that the team needed one to counter the inordinate number of left-handers in the West Indian lineup. The selectors in their wisdom first denied the request. Then, when Javagal Srinath fell fortuitously injured, the selectors perversely sent Noel David as replacement, virtuously claiming that they were giving Tendulkar the off spinner he wanted -- never mind that said Noel David hadn't till that point in time bowled off spin even for his state team.

More recently, the current team management comprising John Wright, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid asked for Ajit Agarkar. "The selectors", Chandu Borde informs us, "decided not to honour the request."

Righto, that is the selectors' prerogative. And it would, further, be argued that Ajit Agarkar has not in recent times distinguished himself with the ball -- in fact, this column has argued for his removal.

There is, however, a larger issue involved here. The team management has seen the pitch, and the conditions. The team management works closely with the various bowlers -- Harvinder Singh, Debashish Mohanty, Ajit Agarkar, whoever. On the other hand, none of the selectors including its chairman has seen the wicket at the Sinhalese Sports Club in Colombo, on which the team is scheduled to play the final Test of the series starting Wednesday.

Wouldn't you say, then, that the team management would be in a better position to know what works and what does not work?

"In any case," Borde argues, "we can't send Agarkar because Mohanty has been picked as first standby."

Hullo? Did Moses carve that into stone and hand it down once he descended from the Mount? Did the selectors give Mohanty some kind of letter saying that in the event a seam replacement was needed, he would be the one to go -- and therefore, if they send someone else, Mohanty will go to court and sue for breach of promise?

Never mind that, too. Let us say that the selectors have been given the job of picking teams. It is their responsibility, and it is up to the captain, vice captain, coach, media and fans to let them get on with their job.

But does it not then follow that the selectors should take responsibility for their decisions?

When India lost 1-0 to the West Indies, did anyone ask whether the absence of a genuine leg spinner harmed the team's chances? No -- they simply sacked Tendulkar, and that was that.

Had India lost the Kandy Test and with it the series, would anyone have asked whether the choice of third seamer had anything to do with it? You need to remember that when Borde and his mates last picked an ODI squad, they omitted Harvinder on the argument that he was a Test bowler. And when the time to pick the Lankan squad came along, duly picked the young lad.

In the first innings in Kandy, Harvinder bowled 14.3 overs, and went for 62 runs. He got two wickets at the tail end of the innings -- but by then, he had already gone for plenty. In the second innings, Zaheer Khan and Venkatesh Prasad ended up bowling unchanged through most of the Lankan innings, despite visible signs that they were tiring -- simply because Ganguly couldn't throw the ball to Harvinder in the expectation that he could keep up the pressure.

As it happened, Zaheer and Venky ran through the opposing line up. But what if they had not? What if India had eventually lost the Test?

Would anyone have asked whether the choice of third seamer had any impact on the result? No, Ganguly would have been sacked as captain -- and it would have been business as usual.

In recent times, Harbhajan Singh got into the national Test team only because the senior players stood united against the objections of the selection committee. More recently, in the Lankan ODI triseries, Virendra Sehwag was asked by the team management to open -- and back home, Chandu Borde on behalf of his fellow selectors questioned that decision and said, in so many words, that the captain was out of turn in going against the wishes of the selectors.

We all know what happened on those two occasions.

So -- the question for Mr Borde and his mates is this: If you are so hell-bent on doing your own thing, at times even against the stated wishes of the team management, are you then equally prepared to take the onus when your decision falls on its face? The next time the team loses, will the chairman of selectors step before the microphone, will he say that in picking X player or not picking Y player, the selectors erred, with fatal consequences to the performance?

And having said that, will he sack himself -- or merely look at the team list to find out the captain's name, and strike it out?

This is the real problem with the way we select teams these days -- the selectors have all the responsibility, but none of the accountability. They decide everything, but are answerable for nothing.

Isn't it time that changed?

In passing, and on things changing -- before the first Test of India's last tour Down Under, this column had talked of longevity at the crease being a crucial key to success.

Here's the link.

The third and final Test against Sri Lanka starts tomorrow. I'd suspect that following the check in Kandy, the hosts are the ones really under pressure -- twice in the recent past, they have taken an early lead in a Test series, only to find the opposition coming back and taking it away from them. They won't want to make a hat-trick out of it.

That gives India its best chance to wrap things up -- and the key, I suspect, will be the duration of India's first innings. If they bat four sessions or more, there seems no way they can lose. Bat under 90 overs, though, and it is possible they will spend the rest of the match with their backs propping up the wall.

Yesterday's Diary:
Bouquets for the BCCI