It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for a captain. In most places, captain has a legitimate right to choose alongside with the coach and the panel of selectors. Specially on the grounds that you are the most accountable individual for the conduct of the other 10 individuals you select.
What happens is that the fallible and at times sinful human in the captain pulls his leg. Going beyond his interest to play the best XI, some captains may choose players of preference for reasons outside of talent. Perhaps your club member, perhaps your cousin, perhaps the school buddy or a compatriot of social elites, religious groups, races or castes. Sometimes the skipper's right to pick may have saved a Sanath Jayasuriya who could not play in the V, but some captains make a horrible mess in selecting 'his team'.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the bigwig of the cricket board. Unlike the captain this is not a rightful interference but having the almighty powers of the game in a country, or imagining so, his majesty the king of the game would always make an evening phone call or watch the match with the selector and his wish will come true. After all, the selectors can never be independent of the man who "selects" them.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the minister in charge. Well, he cannot pick players but he can block a selection by not approving. So there is a hidden but legitimate power in him. With that and other connections and powers of lobbying half a dozen other politicians can interfere selection. Among them there is one who only could not do a gender transition in 1978, and today, with magic of medical sector, has nothing left that (s)he cannot do. Political henchmen and relatives or sons make their way to team quite often or loose their fair selections on similar grounds. Surprisingly these politicians show an unbelievable solidarity that this influence is retained for their buddies in opposition.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the regional cricket powers. To start with, most regional cricket powers even interfere school teams, and simply who can play within their locality. Despite being lesser obvious this is the dirtiest part of the selection game. This is where father's booming business can cause son's expulsion as his rival leads the regional cricket entity. Coaches may go to bed with fellow cricket candidates irrespective of gender. Money may be a reason to play, where not being a slave to one's supremacy to get sacked.
Fair or not, legitimate or under the table, these actions that interfere into selection on matters irrelevant to the skill has caused many to suffer and loose their futures, perhaps burying more Sangakkaras, Aravindas and Muralis among them. Selection interference in Sri Lanka provided enough to write a thriller of a book called Chinaman by some musician called Garfield Shehan Karunasena under the pseudonym of Shehan Karunatilake, yet many feel that his book is only about sundries of the unfair selection whereas there are centuries he missed to talk about. Anyways, for the XI chosen, there are CXXI others to talk about, and that talk around the town is perhaps the only way to regulate the selection and reduce injustice.
For that matter, as cricket fans it is very hard not to 'interfere' into team selection for folks like us. It may raise a shout such as "oh another selection pundit" or "which backyard team have you played to select a team". Agree, helmet off, but IT IS SOOO EFFING HARD NOT TO WRITE SOMETHING ON SELECTION when you saw the XI at Dambulla on last day of August 2016. Apologies before the chest-high beamer.
Sri Lanka should consider followings for ODI.
- To play a minimum of two genuine fast bowlers no matter what (test cricket may be different) because most part of ODI cricket is not spinner's game any more. If some are injured fetch others. I can name few such as Kasun Rajitha, Asitha Fernando, Vishwa Fernando, Dasun Shanaka etc who may perhaps be choices if the ones in squad are not.
- To reduce the number of all rounders in the squad. Accept the truth that we have only one complete all rounder (or very close to it) in captain. So others are all half/half players. In S Prasanna and likes even the half is questionable. Name only about two of them and that is enough. Currently we have Milinda, Sachith, Prasanna, Thissara and Dasun in round robin, none allowed to establish.
- Try to establish on at least one opener. Well the only set opener in past six seven years is chased even before his partner settled. Last thing you want is a musical chair for openers in post-Dilshan era.
- Have experience in no 6 and no 7. If possible have your best players like Angelo. Angelo's promotion in batting is not justified in ODI as he is not the most elegant in middle part. I believe SL can train a better no 5 if Angie plays no 6. Pls think of the WC Angelo, we cannot entertain individual ego, just like you may have spoken to T M Dilshan.
- Selectors should not consider cricket game plans as runaway marriages. Plan of sending Tharanga at no 7 worked so well in England. So please do not divorce your sweetly working game plan for the next bimbo who walks past you.
I know that the interference cannot be avoided and favouring happens always. But at minimum there should be some sanity in the XI and squad. If we allow today's nonsense to continue we may play an XI of all batters all bowlers or all so called whatever percentage all rounders. Or all sons of politicians or all from one school.
Favour you may, but don't harm the balance.
What happens is that the fallible and at times sinful human in the captain pulls his leg. Going beyond his interest to play the best XI, some captains may choose players of preference for reasons outside of talent. Perhaps your club member, perhaps your cousin, perhaps the school buddy or a compatriot of social elites, religious groups, races or castes. Sometimes the skipper's right to pick may have saved a Sanath Jayasuriya who could not play in the V, but some captains make a horrible mess in selecting 'his team'.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the bigwig of the cricket board. Unlike the captain this is not a rightful interference but having the almighty powers of the game in a country, or imagining so, his majesty the king of the game would always make an evening phone call or watch the match with the selector and his wish will come true. After all, the selectors can never be independent of the man who "selects" them.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the minister in charge. Well, he cannot pick players but he can block a selection by not approving. So there is a hidden but legitimate power in him. With that and other connections and powers of lobbying half a dozen other politicians can interfere selection. Among them there is one who only could not do a gender transition in 1978, and today, with magic of medical sector, has nothing left that (s)he cannot do. Political henchmen and relatives or sons make their way to team quite often or loose their fair selections on similar grounds. Surprisingly these politicians show an unbelievable solidarity that this influence is retained for their buddies in opposition.
It is very hard not to interfere into team selection for the regional cricket powers. To start with, most regional cricket powers even interfere school teams, and simply who can play within their locality. Despite being lesser obvious this is the dirtiest part of the selection game. This is where father's booming business can cause son's expulsion as his rival leads the regional cricket entity. Coaches may go to bed with fellow cricket candidates irrespective of gender. Money may be a reason to play, where not being a slave to one's supremacy to get sacked.
Fair or not, legitimate or under the table, these actions that interfere into selection on matters irrelevant to the skill has caused many to suffer and loose their futures, perhaps burying more Sangakkaras, Aravindas and Muralis among them. Selection interference in Sri Lanka provided enough to write a thriller of a book called Chinaman by some musician called Garfield Shehan Karunasena under the pseudonym of Shehan Karunatilake, yet many feel that his book is only about sundries of the unfair selection whereas there are centuries he missed to talk about. Anyways, for the XI chosen, there are CXXI others to talk about, and that talk around the town is perhaps the only way to regulate the selection and reduce injustice.
For that matter, as cricket fans it is very hard not to 'interfere' into team selection for folks like us. It may raise a shout such as "oh another selection pundit" or "which backyard team have you played to select a team". Agree, helmet off, but IT IS SOOO EFFING HARD NOT TO WRITE SOMETHING ON SELECTION when you saw the XI at Dambulla on last day of August 2016. Apologies before the chest-high beamer.
Sri Lanka should consider followings for ODI.
- To play a minimum of two genuine fast bowlers no matter what (test cricket may be different) because most part of ODI cricket is not spinner's game any more. If some are injured fetch others. I can name few such as Kasun Rajitha, Asitha Fernando, Vishwa Fernando, Dasun Shanaka etc who may perhaps be choices if the ones in squad are not.
- To reduce the number of all rounders in the squad. Accept the truth that we have only one complete all rounder (or very close to it) in captain. So others are all half/half players. In S Prasanna and likes even the half is questionable. Name only about two of them and that is enough. Currently we have Milinda, Sachith, Prasanna, Thissara and Dasun in round robin, none allowed to establish.
- Try to establish on at least one opener. Well the only set opener in past six seven years is chased even before his partner settled. Last thing you want is a musical chair for openers in post-Dilshan era.
- Have experience in no 6 and no 7. If possible have your best players like Angelo. Angelo's promotion in batting is not justified in ODI as he is not the most elegant in middle part. I believe SL can train a better no 5 if Angie plays no 6. Pls think of the WC Angelo, we cannot entertain individual ego, just like you may have spoken to T M Dilshan.
- Selectors should not consider cricket game plans as runaway marriages. Plan of sending Tharanga at no 7 worked so well in England. So please do not divorce your sweetly working game plan for the next bimbo who walks past you.
I know that the interference cannot be avoided and favouring happens always. But at minimum there should be some sanity in the XI and squad. If we allow today's nonsense to continue we may play an XI of all batters all bowlers or all so called whatever percentage all rounders. Or all sons of politicians or all from one school.
Favour you may, but don't harm the balance.
It is very hard to comment in a post on Cricket.. :) I initially thought yesterday's team was a good competitive one until suddenly realize that without Mathews they are only a bunch of misfitting rookies. Sad to see the experience and talent of UT going on vein. I still want Thirimanna the batter in this line up. May be he himself prooved me wrong. Apart from team selection I am not happy with DdeS's batting yesterday. He batted like he has scored enough to secure the opening slot. What do you think of Kaushal Silva as a limited over match opener?
ReplyDelete**very hard to not to comment :)
DeleteWhen I raised the issue of no opener established as Dilly was chased away, my FB wall listed at least 10 other potential openers. Kaushal Silva was one. They are all talented but none have proven as an ODI opener even in a diff (recgnizable) level. Other than Kusal P who has done "something" as an opener and UT who has a good past none has a good history.
DeleteSo Kaushal or any other is an empty canvass for me. They have not drawn the picture yet. They may be great artists or waste of time.
DdeS also has not secured the slot yet. It was just one innings with substantial risk, may not be the same again.
For those who suggest "potential" openers I have one Q. How capable are they in making 1000 runs with strike rate around 90 in 2017? Do you think they will? If you're not sure they are not really established players. The man who was chased away had only once missed that mark since 2012 that by 10 runs. And his best year was 2015.
Most importantly his partner was not established when he was chased away.
If an opener can suddenly fall from sky and settle down like a fairy tale it will work. It is possible. But not something they have planned at all.
So.. Now I read this as a broken heart statement of Dilly's (un)timely departure than a die-hard fan's invasion to the selection criteria, right? Don't you think we better play with what is left? Dilshan is history now.
DeleteNo, when I write the post there was no interest in raising Dilshan issue. As you see I am more interested in the other matters like lack of fast bowlers and having too many percentage all rounders. But then you raised the issue of openers yourself and asked whether one particular player is good. The problem is we cannot say, we have no proper info. Some of these players haven't been tried, others never done a worthy thing consistently. So I ended up in the whining corner of chasing away the only established opener.
DeleteSo this post is not about Dilshan, but if you ask me, I think it was one of the stupidest things to do, w/o having the other side settled they chased him away. Not only Dilshan the rest is history too. Unless some luck strikes, we're gonna see many rounds of trial and error