 |
| Srikkanth's team must not only pick players but also provide a sense of direction for the team. |
It's almost as if the shadow of defeat is still loom large for those who want to rule on Indian cricket. The events of the last two weeks, post-Sydney almost certainly has given a negative connotation of immortality, both in the mold of Kim Jong-il. Notably, the statements from the head and shoulders of BCCI were typically range from the absurd, audacious, unreal and if you like it, almost as if indifferent to the events in Australia are just a creation of make-believe reality. Remorse, it must be said, is in acute shortage and shame, fear, none whatsoever. Efforts to stem the rot, if any, are not visible or worse, are not working. Almost like a ship without a rudder, there is a feeling of sunkenness which is in no way going to be easy to fix. A Council does not believe the diagnosis, care needs to the problems engulfing the sport in this country, a surgery or replacement therapy seems to be quickly and easily.
Selectors must be said are the heart of the problem, moving away from what they are paid to do - just pick the teams, but they provide a sense of direction and vision for a period of time possible. Subject to correction, I am inclined to believe that work and responsibility of the switch includes the following (or at least I hope so) - scouting (looking at how much cricket, local / national as possible), communication (with a range of players - seniors, juniors, Fringe), make decisions that are sometimes quite brave and, finally, get a lot of players (and I mean a squad here) that are closer to the kind of vision I have placed, and the direction they've chosen. I'm afraid, this hierarchy does not come better in all these respects. As the BCCI would emphasize repeatedly in bold, 18, underlined words, yes, they presided over the World Cup victory and ascension to the World # 1, but what next? I have no idea.
Selectors are in many ways as the "Director of Football" that are used in European leagues these days, which is not only entrusted with the donkey work of identifying and acquiring personal, but important, is supposed to secure these contracts within a vision framework - a critical aspect of the lack of Indian cricket today. Also, Indian selectors, past, present and future definitely come to think of selection as a two-hour meeting over coffee and filter Pongal, rather than a process that involves the method - both extensive and comprehensive course. So where exactly we have done it wrong?
Watching cricket enough, are we?
They are watching India's cricket selectors enough? Or let me quantify "enough" in the words of pure and simple - "as much as you can"? The answer is a resounding no. Having spoken extensively to national players who have been working all season, it seems that the presence of a selector during the Ranji matches is a bit of a privilege to have for those who play the games. But no, only a handful of games this season has been approached by those who are paid to watch cricket. What else could explain the case of a player being chosen for the national team, without the selector to see it even once, or for that matter through a handful of journalists or an opposition batsman assessment? Somehow, I am tempted to why they will not see as many games as they can? Lethargy, perhaps? Or is it simply the easiest way, where the best thing to do would be to agree with Ranji scores in the morning, or sit in all five for a game in Visakhapatnam India, anyway - is not that what they are paid mainly to do, unfortunately.
How can we fix it? Pretty simple, really. Instead of the contract that big fat check / be allocated on an annual basis, to introduce a fee-game system (implemented by some associations, the by) where you get paid only if you observe 90% of the domestic season, the other 10 % being international games that fall in your area. Hopefully this creates an incentive mechanism for the selectors to go outside, watch the "games as many as possible" and with the help of scouts, find some quality players.
Secondly, one of the problems with dynamic selection of India is the sudden emphasis on IPL, which curiously resembles, instead of Indian journalism today (tweets as quotes etc.) - easy way out. In India, which by definition is supposed to be a level below international cricket, it is now, unfortunately, seen as a fantastic opportunity to reward blood IPL starlets and sneak them into international cricket. The cover of India today, is worth the odd-four overs for 20, or a ball of twenty and fifty, as the road became much easier, with some red carpet along the way. Ask Rahul Sharma, yeah. Saurabh Tiwary Or for that matter.
The politics of the BCCI in this regard is rather confusing. To set it right, it should come up with specific guidelines where only those on the verge of selection test or ODI India to play the tours. Or should those who have fallen back to India to play before using the national colors again. You can not be promoting Twenty20 talent in important tasks. Likewise, the BCCI should also try and look at the creation of a parallel FTP for Team A, which means that when India is touring, say Australia, the team may be somewhere nearby, for example New Zealand or thereabouts. The revitalization of a team culture, with proper selection to go with it could become critical for India's Test cricket future.
Selectors must be said are the heart of the problem, moving away from what they are paid to do - just pick the teams, but they provide a sense of direction and vision for a period of time possible. Subject to correction, I am inclined to believe that work and responsibility of the switch includes the following (or at least I hope so) - scouting (looking at how much cricket, local / national as possible), communication (with a range of players - seniors, juniors, Fringe), make decisions that are sometimes quite brave and, finally, get a lot of players (and I mean a squad here) that are closer to the kind of vision I have placed, and the direction they've chosen. I'm afraid, this hierarchy does not come better in all these respects. As the BCCI would emphasize repeatedly in bold, 18, underlined words, yes, they presided over the World Cup victory and ascension to the World # 1, but what next? I have no idea.
Selectors are in many ways as the "Director of Football" that are used in European leagues these days, which is not only entrusted with the donkey work of identifying and acquiring personal, but important, is supposed to secure these contracts within a vision framework - a critical aspect of the lack of Indian cricket today. Also, Indian selectors, past, present and future definitely come to think of selection as a two-hour meeting over coffee and filter Pongal, rather than a process that involves the method - both extensive and comprehensive course. So where exactly we have done it wrong?
Watching cricket enough, are we?
They are watching India's cricket selectors enough? Or let me quantify "enough" in the words of pure and simple - "as much as you can"? The answer is a resounding no. Having spoken extensively to national players who have been working all season, it seems that the presence of a selector during the Ranji matches is a bit of a privilege to have for those who play the games. But no, only a handful of games this season has been approached by those who are paid to watch cricket. What else could explain the case of a player being chosen for the national team, without the selector to see it even once, or for that matter through a handful of journalists or an opposition batsman assessment? Somehow, I am tempted to why they will not see as many games as they can? Lethargy, perhaps? Or is it simply the easiest way, where the best thing to do would be to agree with Ranji scores in the morning, or sit in all five for a game in Visakhapatnam India, anyway - is not that what they are paid mainly to do, unfortunately.
How can we fix it? Pretty simple, really. Instead of the contract that big fat check / be allocated on an annual basis, to introduce a fee-game system (implemented by some associations, the by) where you get paid only if you observe 90% of the domestic season, the other 10 % being international games that fall in your area. Hopefully this creates an incentive mechanism for the selectors to go outside, watch the "games as many as possible" and with the help of scouts, find some quality players.
Secondly, one of the problems with dynamic selection of India is the sudden emphasis on IPL, which curiously resembles, instead of Indian journalism today (tweets as quotes etc.) - easy way out. In India, which by definition is supposed to be a level below international cricket, it is now, unfortunately, seen as a fantastic opportunity to reward blood IPL starlets and sneak them into international cricket. The cover of India today, is worth the odd-four overs for 20, or a ball of twenty and fifty, as the road became much easier, with some red carpet along the way. Ask Rahul Sharma, yeah. Saurabh Tiwary Or for that matter.
The politics of the BCCI in this regard is rather confusing. To set it right, it should come up with specific guidelines where only those on the verge of selection test or ODI India to play the tours. Or should those who have fallen back to India to play before using the national colors again. You can not be promoting Twenty20 talent in important tasks. Likewise, the BCCI should also try and look at the creation of a parallel FTP for Team A, which means that when India is touring, say Australia, the team may be somewhere nearby, for example New Zealand or thereabouts. The revitalization of a team culture, with proper selection to go with it could become critical for India's Test cricket future.
No comments:
Post a Comment