MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Anatomy of a selection committee meeting

Much debate and discussion has been sparked, as of late last week, by the axing of Sachin Tendulkar and the reappointment of Mohammad Azharuddin as India's cricket captain. (Speaking of which, the first lot of letters from outraged readers was carried on our site on Saturday, a second lot appears in the same forum tomorrow, Tuesday).

In context, it might be of interest to dissect the appointment, and find out exactly how the selectors railroaded the decision through. Follows, a sneak peak into the modus operandi, retailed to us, in pitiless detail, by the proverbial "fly on the wall".

It is no secret that the decision to oust Sachin Tendulkar had its seeds not, as is widely propagated, in his loss of batting form or even in India's plummeting cricketing results. Rather, the seeds were sown as early as March 1997, when the then Indian captain made the unpardonable mistake of telling the press that he was dissatisfied with the way the selection committee went about its business.

He did that during the selection of the team to tour the West Indies. When he asked for an off spinner and the request was turned down, Sachin stormed: "If you are not going to listen to me, then why invite me for these meetings and make a farce of it?". Subsequently, at the end of the meeting, he let it be widely known that he disagreed with the team as selected.

From that point on, Sachin had to go -- simply because this selection committee, which operates on principles other than cricketing logic, could not afford an independent-minded captain who would question their decisions. Sure, each successive selection exercise with its quota of "surprises" would be ripped by the media -- but that falls under the category of "acceptable risk" for the famous five. Because after all, they always had the option of saying -- as they did, again, when announcing the team for Dhaka -- that the media was on a witch-hunt. However, if the captain himself began criticising them, they would find themselves on a sticky wicket -- ergo, Tendulkar should go.

The original schedule called for his ouster at the end of the West Indies tour. The collapse in Barbados, when India was chasing 120 to win, appeared to provide the perfect excuse. However, their alternate candidate, Mohammad Azharuddin, blotted his copybook very badly during that tour, batting with a lack of application that earned universal censure (including negative reports from both captain Tendulkar and manager Madan Lal) and forced the selectors, in the face of universal condemnation, to drop him for the Independence Cup.

Then came the Asia Cup. The most vivid image in my mind, of the selection committee meeting in Bangalore, is of the press briefing that followed. First, Jaywant Lele came out to instruct C Nagaraj, the KSCA secretary, to prepare the briefing room. At the time, those of us who were already there clearly heard Lele tell Nagaraj that behind the table should be four chairs -- for the captain, coach, chairman of selectors and for Lele himself.

About two hours after the meeting commenced, Tendulkar stormed out (he had earlier attempted to walk out of the meeting, only to be restrained by Lele), closely followed by coach Madan Lal. Rather than wait for the press briefing, Tendulkar went right to the team dressing room, picked up his bags, and left for the airport, en route to Bombay. A few minutes later, Lele and Ramakant Desai held their briefing -- with two empty chairs an eloquent testimony to the unhappiness of captain and coach. Pressed, Desai was forced to admit that Tendulkar "may not have got" the exact team he wanted.

During the tour of Sri Lanka, Azhar rediscovered his batting touch, and the selectors got the excuse they needed to sack Tendulkar -- after all, it is not every day that a team scores 900+ runs in a Test. However, when you proceed against a player of Tendulkar's stature, there is always fear of a backlash -- so they figured on making matters doubly certain by letting him lead against Pakistan in Toronto and Pakistan. The thinking was that the Indian team -- further handicapped by the absence of both Srinath and Prasad -- would be mauled by the Pakistan side, and therefore, the move to sack Tendulkar could be justified.

Unfortunately -- for the selectors, I mean -- India won. And handily, at that. At which point, the selectors realised that they couldn't quite justify sacking the skipper (though no such qualms attended the axing of manager Madan Lal -- who, let's face is, is not a national icon in the Tendulkar mould).

Never mind, went the thinking, the Lankans will do an encore of the mauling they gave the Indians earlier in the year. And that in turn will be the signal for "operation sack-Tendulkar". And to help the good work along, they insisted that Prasad should not play in the first two Tests.

Unfortunately again, it was India that outperformed the Lankans with both bat and ball in the three-Test series, missing out on wins twice out of three thanks only to the weather. Again, the selectors were stumped -- more so because Azharuddin's batting form in the three Tests was nothing to write home about either.

Thus Tendulkar became "captain for 27 days" -- for Sharjah, and the three-ODI series against Lanka to follow. India, rather predictably, lost in Sharjah. But again, just when conditions seemed right, Azharuddin again let the selection committee down with a shocking performance with the bat. He, in fact, had to be hauled up before the committee and reprimanded -- as Desai first said. Or "given a pep talk, as spin-doctor Kishen Rungta subsequently amended.

The whole thing appeared inexplicable -- or was it. Fact one, Azhar's performance in Sharjah was universally condemned. It was easy enough to brush away the criticism of such worthies as Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and Geoffrey Boycott to name just three -- after all, the media doesn't count. But interestingly, J Y Lele, who had a ringside seat in Sharjah, openly indicated that in his opinion, Azharuddin should be sacked, irrespective of past record, for his shocking performance. "You cannot be overawed by reputations, there has to be accountability," Lele thundered.

Why then did the selectors settle for a "pep talk"?

Because Jagmohan Dalmiya very clearly indicated to the selectors that under no circumstances should Azharuddin be sacked before December 31. What was the significance of that date? Because on December 31, Tendulkar's "27 day" captaincy ended, and a new one could be chosen. But if at that point Azhar was on the sidelines, he could not be given the mantle, could he? So Azhar had to remain in the team.

Who is Dalmiya? The former secretary of the BCCI, yes. The current president of the ICC, yes. When, a month after his appointment to the top post in the global body, I called his office seeking clarification on a BCCI matter, I was told, rather snootily, that as ICC president, Dalmiya was not allowed to, and indeed did not, take any active interest in the internal affairs of any one country, including India. In other words, the ICC president was concerned with global, not regional cricket. Therefore -- I was told -- please do not phone this office with any questions about domestic affairs.

Of course, subsequently Dalmiya fought the bitterest faction battle ever in Indian cricket history, against friend turned foe Inderjit Singh Bindra, during the BCCI elections. And forgetting his own "impartial" pose, actually went down to Madras to mastermind the politicking, from behind the scenes while his puppets danced to his tune on the BCCI stage. So much, then, for Dalmiya the "impartial" global supremo.

All of which brought matters to the wire -- the series against Sri Lanka, to wit.

Examine what happened. One of the games was ruined thanks to the board's own incompetence. One -- the first game -- was won handily by the Indians, with Tendulkar himself performing the star turn. And one -- the third game -- was lost. In other words, India had squared a one day series against the world champions.

Not quite disastrous -- but the selectors figured they couldn't wait any longer. What happens, for instance, if India under Tendulkar goes to Dhaka and wins? In that case, the selectors would again find themselves in the same post-Toronto quandary -- to wit, how to sack a winning captain?

So they figured on pushing the move through immediately. How was it done?

Broadly, this is what happened. The selectors assembled in Bombay the evening before the meeting. Shivlal Yadav and Sambaran Bannerjee -- the most vocal of the "sack Tendulkar" faction -- shared a room at the Wankhede and, that night, put in place step one. Which was to agree that the captain for Dhaka also had to lead against Australia.

What cricketing logic is there for that argument? None. Dhaka is a one day tournament. If Tendulkar had to be sacked, then Jadeja, already the deputy and a sure bet for the final eleven, was the logical successor.

But if Jadeja was given the captaincy, it would have brought about a situation wherein, irrespective of the result at Dhaka, the captaincy issue would have been opened up again ahead of the Australia tour. After all, Jadeja was not a certainity for the Test squad. And given that "bad batting" was the stated reason for axing Tendulkar -- remember, Kishen Rungta in the press briefing announcing Azhar's announcement specifically stated that it was Tendulkar's batting form that went against him -- the selectors would have been rather embarassed bringing up that excuse for the Test series, given that Tendulkar in the calendar year just ended was averaging 63+ in Tests, way ahead of his career average.

Ergo, the selectors could not afford a situation where the captaincy of the Test side became subject for debate. And the only way to avoid it was by agreeing to the rule that the guy who led in Dhaka had to lead against Australia as well.

Once that little spin was agreed upon, the rest followed a preordained course. When the meeting began, the selectors first discussed Tendulkar's "bad batting and loss of form", agreed that with the best interests of Indian cricket at heart -- far be it from anyone to even suspect that motives other than India's best interests rule their hearts -- they owed it to Tendulkar to lift the pressure off his shoulders, and the best way to do it was to take away the "burden of captaincy".

At which point, M Pandove proposed that Jadeja be made captain. The proposal was quickly seconded by -- surprise, surprise -- Kishen Rungta.

Was Rungta serious? Was he, ever! It was the selfsame Rungta who had vociferously insisted, at the December 18 selection meeting, that Azhar should not be sacked for the series against Lanka. His seconding of Jadeja's name, thus, was merely the penultimate act of an elaborate charade.

At this point, Shivlal Yadav piped up on cue. To remind his colleagues that they had agreed that the captain to Dhaka would also lead against Australia. So how, he asked -- with immediate support from Sambaran Bannerjee -- could Jadeja be asked to lead, given that he might not even be in the 14-member Test squad to face the Aussies?

True, true, went the rest. So what are the options? Well, they answered themselves, there is Saurav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, and Mohammad Azharuddin -- the only three players who are sure of their places in both the Dhaka squad, and for the Tests to follow. (True, Nayan Mongia too can consider himself a certainity for the Tests, as can Javagal Srinath -- but they are not captaincy material anyway).

So the choice narrowed down to one of three. Tendulkar, remember, was actually no choice -- after all, his batting had to be "protected, for the best interests of Indian cricket". Sourav Ganguly? Too young, too raw, needs more time to develop -- besides, he is easily India's frontline batsman today, what if the pressure of captaincy tells on him and his batting form collapses? Tsk tsk, we can't have that.

So what, went the famous five, can we do now? They examined the available options -- and realised, surprise, surprise, that there really was only one option left.

Mohammad Azharuddin.

And so, by universal acclaim, the deed was done. And Indian cricket -- and its fans -- had been presented with a masterful display of manipulation.

Tailpiece: The latest whipping boy of the national selectors is the media. Why is Tendulkar batting badly? Because of media pressure. Why was Azharuddin summoned for a meeting with the selection committee on December 18? Because he was mentally low thanks to sustained criticism in the media. Why is Indian cricket in the doldrums? Because of... you guessed it... the cricket media, and its allegations of betting, bribery, match fixing, et al.

We are happy to note that at the very least, the media has had one positive effect -- it has kept the national selectors from wasting their time.

Cast your mind back to May 1997. The venue, Bangalore. The event: the selection of the team for the Asia Cup. 15 minutes before the meeting began, committee chairman Ramakant Desai told me, "Oh, it is actually an easy job, 10 of the players pick themselves, we only have to pick four more and that should take about 15 minutes."

In the event, it took a little over two hours of bitter battle. In course of which Tendulkar first attempted to walk out, then ended up boycotting the press briefing.

This fact was highlighted in Rediff, and in other sections of the media.

Since then, selection committee meetings take not more than 15 minutes. "We took only five minutes to unanimously decide to retain Tendulkar as captain against Sri Lanka," says Lele, before the three-Test series against our neighbours. "We took only 10 minutes to decide on the side," says Lele the next day. "We took only 15 minutes to decide to retain the same side for the second Test." "We took only 10 minutes to decide to retain the same side for the third Test."..... and so on...

Remarkably, every single selection exercise since then has carried, with it, the announcement that the national selectors took "only x number of minutes" to decide...

A tribute to the quick-thinking abilities of the five wise men?

Or an indication of the enormous trouble being taken to arrive at all decisions before the actual meeting, in order to present the picture of smiling unanimity to the media?

You tell me.