Nine openers, six bowlers and a wicketkeeper

The selectors have done it yet again, proving what Mohinder Amarnath had discovered years ago.

There has been so much paranoia about grooming openers that the selectors have done the unthinkable... selected nine openers for the tour of the West Indies!

Both Wasim Jaffer and Sanjay Bangar open in the Ranji Trophy for Mumbai and Railways respectively. Shiv Sundar Das and Deep Dasgupta open for Bengal in the Ranji Trophy and have recently opened for India against Zimbabwe. Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly have all opened for India in the past in Tests and have been debated upon as potential Test openers who should open more regularly in future. Tendulkar and Dinesh Mongia have opened for India in one-day cricket and at some stage have been debated upon as possible openers in Test cricket as well.

In fact, two players who missed out on the tour, Virender Sehwag too has opened for India in one-day cricket and, thank God, better sense prevailed and Connor Williams, another opener, was not picked up for the tour ... phew !!!

The chairman of selectors needs to clarify if one or two wicketkeepers have been chosen for the tour, as right now he has been very ambiguous on the issue. If Deep Dasgupta has been chosen as a second wicketkeeper, then the selectors are doing grave injustice to the wicketkeeping position, as they have failed to pick up the second best in the country. That position should have ideally gone to a youngster and a genuine keeper like MSK Prasad or someone as deserving. Forget Deep Dasgupta as a second wicketkeeper.... he may not even be among India's top ten wicketkeepers. If he has been chosen as a pure batsman and opener along with Das and Jaffer, then the question to be asked is: are there really three openers in this squad, as stated by Borde?

Even if we take Dinesh Mongia and Tendulkar out of the above-mentioned nine openers, as these two have never opened in a Test match for India before, we are still left with seven current or former openers who have done the job in the longer version of the game for India or their associations in the Ranji trophy. Pray then, did Deep Dasgupta deserve to be picked as opener over other batsmen like Kaif or Yuvraj?

The selectors cannot take comfort by saying that he can keep wickets as well. There is no place for such sentiments as we are talking about Test cricket here.

The arguement that the performance of one-day cricket should not form a yardstick to select a Test team stinks, as this may hold true if a bits and pieces player, like Noel David, is being discussed for a Test team. Or specialists like Bevan, Chris Harris, Robin Singh, Symonds, Harvey and a host of others are being discussed.

Dinesh Mongia, Kaif and Yuvraj came into the Indian side for the recent one-day series on sheer performance in domestic cricket and delivered at the highest level. So did Wasim Jaffer, who has now been picked. While Dinesh Mongia been selected for the Test team based on his one-day performance. Then how come other top performers like Agarkar, Yuvraj and Kaif, who have all excelled in one-day cricket and have been match-winners, and Karthik and Irfan Pathan, who have excelled in domestic cricket against good opposition, have been left out?

Why do selectors lable players as one-day specialists? Sehwag too was similarly labled in the past and it took a gutsy Ganguly in South Africa (with lesser interference from selectors, probably) to blood him in a Test match. Do we need to be reminded that Sehwag scored a century on debut and has not looked back ever since? It's altogether a different matter that he still does not get picked regularly in the Test team as prima donnas like Laxman are preferred for their reputations rather than consistency and sheer performance. Why haven't we learnt lessons from the Aussies who have left out the Waugh brothers as their performance has taken a beating. In the past the selectors have argued that the Aussies have plently of talent and bench strength and so can afford to take those bold steps.

So why did our selectors play safe when they had the opportunity to emulate their Aussie counter parts, when talent came knocking on their doors too ?

Borde has stated that Laxman was picked as he plays the faster bowlers well, as proved by his performance against the Australian fast bowlers in India. He has also stated that the pitches in West Indies favour fast bowling. Nothing can be further than the truth. Laxman may be a good player of fast bowling, but succeeded against Australia because he mastered Shane Warne and not McGrath and Gillepsie, who were not as effective on placid Indian pitches unsuited for their type of bowling.

Is Borde then implying that Flintoff, Caddick, Gough, Hoggard, Streak and Watambwe, who Laxman played subsequently, were all slow medium ?

The fact of the matter is that VVS Laxman is not the same player that played the Aussies in India. Period.

Reputations cannot be a substitute for performance and consistency unless that player happens to be in the class of a Tendulkar, Gavaskar or a Kapil Dev. Even a Kapil Dev should have played lesser Tests than he did as that time. Manoj Prabhakar was in top form and arguably the best swing bowler in the world and a yongster like Javagal Srinath was knocking hard for a place that was blocked by Kapil. Even then the selectors went by form (selectors' form and not players' form) and picked Kapil instead of Srinath. That form continues even today as Laxman has been picked at the cost of a Yuvraj and a Kaif, proving that form may desert the best of players but selectors are always consistent!

And any self-respecting cricket fan knows what Chandu Borde does not know... that pitches in the West Indies are no longer like they used to be years ago. Does the West Indies have bowlers in the class of Garner, Marshall, Croft, Roberts, Holding, Ambrose or even a Walsh to exploit fast bowling any longer?

Even if one is inclined to believe Borde, then how come India's fastest bowler on current form, who bowled some very hostile match-winning spells against Zimbabwe in the one-day series, was also the highest wicket taker in the tounament and someone who even overshadowed the other pacers in the side, was not picked for the Windies tour?

Ajit Agarkar has been labled as a one-day specialist by Chandu Borde inspite of having an excellent Test record overseas on bouncy and fast conditions and being highly respected by international cricketers all over the world. Ashish Nehra and Tinu Yohanan have been preferred over Agarkar for the Test tour of the West Indies. Borde needs to answer that if Agarkar is a one-day bowler and Yohanan a Test bowler, then what was Yohanan doing in the one-day side against Zimbabwe? Why wasn't a more deserving one-day player player chosen?

With the World Cup around the corner and with India lacking the services of a genuine pace all-rounder to replace Srinath for the World Cup, and considering that the one-day game is more suited for one-day all-rounders (like Agarkar - Borde's words, not mine ), why are we not grooming one such player in that mould, who should have played the one-day series against both England and Zimbabwe ? No, I am not talking about Sanjay Bangar, who, incidentally, Borde says is an "all-rounder" and the fifth pace bowler in the Indian squad to the West Indies. While not taking anything away from Bangar's batting prowess, if Borde feels Bangar is the fifth pace bowler, then Ganguly must be a genuine fast bowler and the second all rounder and the sixth pace bowler in the squad!

Bangar, at the most, bowls at the same pace as Ganguly and slightly faster than Kumble.

My reference is towards Robin Morris, who should have played the one-day games against England and Zimbabwe and should be groomed as a genuine pace bowling all-rounder with an eye on the World Cup. At the most he should have been on the bench for these two series and not Yohanan.

The selectors have opted for only six specialist bowlers (4 pacers and 2 spinners), which is shocking, considering it is such a long and tough tour when ideally there should have been seven bowlers.

Even then the fourth pacer should have been ideally Irfan Pathan and not Tinu Yohanan, again if one goes by form. While Irfan, an exciting prospect and probably bowling as fast if not better than Agarkar and Zaheer Khan, was picking wickets by the bagful against quality opposition in domestic cricket, Yohanan was warming the benches and has not played competitive cricket for almost three months after the last Test series against England.

Instead, the selectors should have had Yohanan play the domestic circuit to judge if Irfan or a rusty Yohanan should have gone to the West Indies. Again, on current form, Ajit Agarkar should have gone to the West Indies and not Ashish Nehra. So, ideally, the four pacers should have been Srinath, Agarkar, Zaheer and Irfan Pathan. Like I said, there should have been seven bowlers picked for this tour and if the selectors pumped for pace then they should have gone for Yohanan, but I would have pumped for spin, considering how wickets have become slow over the years in the West Indies, and gone with Murali Karthik.

Pathan and Yohanan could have both gone even if Karthik would have been selected, but more of that later.

Why six bowlers is shocking is that Srinath and Kumble have in the past undergone serious operations and their fitness is a question time and again. Zaheer has broken down in the past due to being overworked and Ashish Nehra is so injury-prone. On such a tough tour, God forbid if two bowlers break down simultaneously, we will be forced to play four without having the liberty to choose the best and we'll have to just forget about then playing agressively and pick five bowlers, as we just won't have them.

But, maybe, that's what the selectors want. If they had to pick another fast bowler (and since Borde says that West Indies pitches favour fast bowling), they would have been forced to pick either Agarkar or Pathan on current form. Unless they wish to ressurrect Mohanty, that tireless overseas net bowler and tourist!

So, if one reads a pattern to this article, the question to be begged of the selectors is what do they have against players like Agarkar, Pathan, Robin Morris and even Wasim Jafer? The common thread that runs through these players is that they all have the misfortune of playing for Mumbai.

When has anyone from Mumbai, other than Tendulkar, last played consistently for India? Zaheer Khan too went through this - infact, the poor guy was not even considered for Mumbai and had to then play for Baroda and on the sheer performance of three or four matches in one season for Baroda was picked up for India. Thank God he was not selected for Mumbai, for then, he would have been lost to Indian cricket.

Look at Wasim Jaffer's record after he was dropped after making an unsuccessful debut at home against South Africa in that contoversial series that led to life bans on Azharuddin and Hansie Crojne. That South African team had bowlers of the caliber of Donald and Pollock. In the two years since that unsuccessful debut, Wasim Jaffer's record has been nothing short of outstanding - infact, super human, with either a century or a half century in every other innings in domestic cricket and club cricket ( Kanga, IOC, etc ) both in India well as England in the Yorkshire league.

In between there has been the odd triple and double century. I have yet to see an opening batsmen who has been repeatedly ignored inspite of such amazing consistency while lesser players like Connor Williams and Deep Dasgupta opened for India.

And yet the selectors say they also had Connor Williams and Gautam Gambhir in the frame!

What is absolutely shocking is this lad from Mumbai was actually overlooked for both, the recently-held Irani Trophy as well as the Board President's XI team against the visiting Zimbabwe side. Were the selectors afraid that given the form Jaffer was in, he would force his way in into the side against Zimbabwe?

If SS Das was given a soft openeing by having him debut and play initially against weaker teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at home then why was Wasim Jaffer not given a deserving chance and selected for the Test side at home both against England and Zimbabwe. Given the form that he was in, and the class he has displayed, any success at home (higher chances) would have made him a better opener for the tough West Indies tour.

Going by the sheer weight of Wasim Jaffer's performance that pitchforked him into Test cricket again, Ajit Agarkar will have to pick at least five wickets every second innings to be considered for India in Test cricket.

Irfan Pathan did one better by picking 10 wickets in the last Duleep Trophy match and even when the selectors were picking the side for the West Indies, had picked up three top wickets in the first innings in a subsequent Duleep Trophy match.

That's an average of 4.5 wickets for each of his last three innings, which may not be a good yardstick, but he has performed incredibily well throughout the season. So why are these players ignored? Why is there a Mumbai bias? Why are players like Robin Morris, Agarkar and Irfan Pathan ignored? Why does another player from Mumbai, Wasim Jaffer, have to do so much to get into the Indian team?

That brings me to S S Das and Anil Kumble but let's begin with S S Das.

Das's first Test century was scored against Zimbabwe at home and the second came against the same opposition at home after 14 Test matches. In between the least said about his overseas record outside the subcontinent the better. Where is the consistency from Das even at home against teams, good teams like Australia and even England and Zimbabwe?

The problem lies not with Das though as much it lies with our selectors. For years we have not had a good replacement for Gavaskar, so when an average one comes along we find him very good and overlook many flaws.

It's a bit like the Hindi film industry, where year after year we are used to seeing so much trash that suddenly an average film comes along and it becomes a super hit even if there are many flaws!

Persisting with Das or even the Deep Dasguptas made sense as long as opening batting talent was not knocking at the selectors' doors, but when it does, selectors need to correct flaws and go by sheer performance.

That brings me to Anil Kumble. For me, the best leg spinner in the world, even better than Warne in home conditions, where he is an absolute match winner.

But look at his overseas record - when has he last won a match for India outside the subcontinent? When has he last taken a five-wicket haul in an innings overseas outside the subcontinent? A look at his overseas past record against South Africa, Australia, England and the West Indies will tell a chilling story.

Yet, we tend to pick him tour after tour, purely based on his performance and reputation that he has on Indian wickets.

So what should be the yardstick? One may argue that players like Yohanan and Jaffer too have been picked on the basis of the form shown in India, so why not Kumble ?

The critical difference is that Kumble has proved that he is ineffective outside the subcontinent whereas players like Yohanan and Jaffer have not got an opportunity to prove themselves overseas.

Infact, as seen in the recent series against South Africa, a prima donna like Kumble upset the balance of the Test side by forcing India to play two pacers and two spinners when ideally three pacers and Harbhajan should have played. I foresee the same issues cropping up in the West Indies, where in a Test match, conditions may favour fast bowling but we'll end up playing two spinners and two pacers.

Now imagine if the selectors had gone by form and not Kumble's reputation on home conditions and done the unthinkable .... yes, yes, dropped Kumble and picked Karthik!

This would also have given Ganguly more options as he then would not be boged down by reputations and compulsions of picking up these prima donnas in the first 11 just because they have been selected for the tour and excluding them from the first 11 is unthinkable.

But the selector's did nothing of that sort and made their job of justifying the dropping of Karthik easier by picking him for that solitary one-day game against Zimbabwe. Karthik would have served India cricket better had the selectors picked him up for the West Indies tour irrespective of how he performed in that solitary one-day match against Zimbabwe.

Want more proof of how the selectors function at various levels? If memory serves me right, Mohd Khaif led the under Indian under-19 World Cup-winning team with Yuvraj as his deputy. Given their current form in domestic cricket, for the India "A" tour to South Africa, ideally the same two players should have been at the helm, but what do we see? Yuvraj, a proven match-winner with phenomenal natural talent, was not even initially considered for this tour. Thank God better sense prevailed and, backed by his two match-winning knocks against Zimbabwe, he was drafted into the team. Otherwise, who knows, we might have lost him like we lost L Sivaramhrishnan and Sadanand Vishwanath because nobody bothered to take these players into confidence, counsel and correct them and inspire confidence into them when they were down.

To a certain extent, Vinod Kambli too had to endure this. Once again true form shown by various selection panels over the years!

Coming back to the point of how selectors operate at the India 'A' level, Jacob Martin has been named captain now that Mongia has been selected to the senior team, with Kaif his deputy. Do the selector's still have Jacob Martin in the frame as future India material, what with other youngsters knocking hard?

. Should not the India 'A' captain and vice-captain position have gone to Khaif and Yuvraj respectively. From the selector's view, they probably think drafting Yuvraj into the India 'A' side is just reward for his recent outstanding performance.

Isin't it ironical that Dinesh Mongia had just one match-winning performance, his other highest score being 45 in the five one-dayers and yet goes to the west Indies. Whereas both Mohd Khaif and Yuvraj had at least two such scores which directly attributed to wins for India in the five-match series. To back that, both also occassionally bowl and so does Mongia, but the two are fielders in the class that Indian fans have not seen in a long, long while and yet Dinesh Mongia was preferred over these two, when ideally all three should have gone to the West Indies.

So who will bell the cat? Who holds Indian cricket close to their heart... ? Just me and you, that passionate breed called "fans". Going by recent events, definitely not the selectors, whose responsibility lies more towards catering to their respective associations and their administartors rather than improving Indian cricket.

Even ex-cricketers as selectors will not solve the problem as these poor guys get sucked into the system. It's a bit like the problem faced by Abhimanyu, except that it's not only the selectors who are Abhimanyus but more so the countless fans of Indian cricket who are stuck in this "Chakravyuh" dished out by cricket administartors who run cricket in the country.

Editor's note: Rediff believes that like its own editorial staffers, readers too have points of view on the many issues relating to cricket as it is played.

Therefore, Rediff provides in its editorial section space for readers to write in, with their views. The views expressed by the readers are carried as written, in order to preserve the original voice.

However, it needs mentioning that guest columns are opinion pieces, and reflect only the feelings of the individual concerned -- the fact that they are published on Rediff's cricket site does not amount to an endorsement by the editorial staff of the opinions expressed in these columns.

Mail Anil Noronha