NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Cricket Interview / Kishen Rungta

'When you think of the best answer to the Aussies, you think of Tendulkar, don't you? For us, it was as simple as that'

Wonders will never cease. Or maybe it is just the fact that he is coming to the end of his five-year tenure as selector, come September 15.

Whatever. The last time I asked Kishen Rungta, chairman of the selectors, for an interview, he waved me away with the expression residents of Surat presumably used, during the height of the plague-scare, when they saw a particularly foul-looking rat.

This time I didn't bother to ask -- and damn near dropped in a faint when he waved at me. That wave got me thinking of chancing my luck -- so I ask for an interview, and come close to fainting again when he says sure, why not, you see me after the press-briefing and let's talk.

I do that -- still expecting a stall -- and the chairman of the national selectors pulls up a chair and fields questions. He would have been talking still, had TNCA secretary Ashok Khumbat not come along and whispered something in his ear that made him excuse himself on the plea of urgent work. But before he left, he gave me the ultimate surprise -- his visiting card, and an exhortation to call him at home, next week, if I wanted to go into even more detail.

So here goes, excerpts of a -- and I still don't believe this -- chat with Kishen Rungta:

Mr Chairman, are you happy with the teams as picked?

Why not? Both teams are good, strong, capable of putting up a good show. Given the circumstances, I would say we have done a good job, in balancing the two teams.

To rephrase that -- are you happy at having to split a combination that has won pretty much everything that came their way in recent times?

Well, happy or unhappy does not enter into it -- this is what we were asked to do, by the Board, to pick up two strong teams, of more or less equal strength, and we have done just that.

No Tendulkar in Toronto against Pakistan -- are you happy with that, as well?

Sachin is without doubt a great player -- almost everyone agrees that he is the greatest in the world today. But you should think of teams, not of one player. If Tendulkar being in the side means you are sure to win, then how do you explain the fact that a full-strength Indian side lost to Australia in the tri-series final earlier this year?

I remember last year, when we picked the squad for Toronto, everyone said the bowling was very bad -- and what happened? We bowled Pakistan out convincingly in four matches out of five. Ideally, yes, Tendulkar and Ganguly together are our best opening combination, but this time, the circumstances indicated that we had to split them.

Was there any specific directive from the Board, or request from the IOA, to send Sachin to Kuala Lumpur to add star value?

No, no one specifically told us any such thing. Our objective in picking a side for the Games was to consider the Australians specifically, since they are the key to our getting past the league stage. And when you think of the best answer to the Aussies, you think of Tendulkar, don't you? For us, it was as simple as that.

Still on Tendulkar -- there were two captaincies, and two vice- captaincies, open. Yet this selection committee, which elevated Tendulkar to the top job not so long ago, didn't consider him good enough for even a VC berth?

You look at Sachin's record after he was removed from the captaincy, that will answer your question. After all, Ajay Jadeja has led the side before, and Anil Kumble has been vice-captain, so they know what to do. So we thought there was no sense in putting that extra pressure on Sachin, we preferred to leave him free to bat as he has been batting lately.

Besides, if you ask Anshuman Gaekwad, he will tell you that captain or no, Sachin has a hand in all decisions -- I am told that in management meetings, though only the coach, captain and vice-captain are supposed to be there, they always make it a point to include Sachin as well. So I don't really think there was anything to gain by making him captain or vice-captain here -- he is a great batsman, let him do what he is best at doing.

Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, I notice, has been a regular member of the camp in Madras. Was he considered for either of the two sides?

No. No one outside the 30 probables were considered. You see, the Board had submitted the 30 names in advance to the IOA for getting visas, so even if we wanted to, we couldn't have considered anyone outside that list.

But did you want to? In the sense, what was the reading of the selectors about Siva's bowling, considering that the coaches, and even Azhar himself, are on record as being very favourably impressed by him?

Well, you see, we can't simply go by opinions, there has to be performance as well to back it up. Aren't you press people the first to object at some selection of ours and ask, where is the performance to back it up? So now how can you suggest that someone be picked without performing? True ( he adds, responding to an interjection of mine) Siva might be having some problems with the state association, I don't know about that.

For the national selectors to consider someone, he has to be playing for the state, that is the first criterion and Siva is not, now, in the state side, so there ends the matter. Also, don't forget, we did pick him for the Wills Trophy match earlier, and he bowled badly there. So let us wait and see, a new season is coming up so he will surely get chances to impress.

You mentioned press criticism just now, Mr Rungta -- tell me, has the media been getting under your skin, with its criticism?

Frankly, while we read what you people write about us, we don't let it affect us. If you do that, then you won't be able to do your job. I am not saying we discount everything that you people write, I am only saying that we don't let it "get under our skin", as you called it.

Granting that, do you also feel the media is unfair, or unjust, in its criticism?

More than unfair or unjust, I think sections of the media are misinformed about our reasons for doing what we do. We drop a certain player and there is a big hue and cry, the media says there is zonal bias, or personal bias by the selectors against that particular player. But how do you know what our thinking is, or why we did whatever it is? We are not here to ruin cricket or cricketers, we will have had our own reasons for what we do.

Maybe if you were to take the media into confidence about those reasons...

Even that is not always possible -- sometimes, the selectors might have an opinion about a particular player. If you splash it all over your front pages, imagine what harm it can do to the morale of the player concerned! We might have explained it mildly to the player, let him down lightly -- going to the press with our reasons is not always a good thing to do.

Talking of loss of morale, how about, to cite just one instance, the loss of morale of say Rahul Dravid, who was told he was not good enough to be in the one-day side?

Let me explain. When we sit down to pick a side, we have to look at several aspects. There is ability, form, the present and future requirements of the team. And then there is also one other important aspect, and that is team balance. In Dravid's case, no one was doubting his ability, he is one of the best players we have. But you look at our batting line-up -- when we are batting with Sachin, Saurav, Azhar, Ajay and Robin, to put Dravid in there was taking up an extra berth, that we wanted for another all-rounder. That is what I mean by team balance.

Just like, Ajay and Robin, no one can say they are not top class players, but don't we drop them when it comes to Tests? Why? Not for reasons of form or for lack of ability, but because their presence can upset the team balance.

So by that reasoning, Dravid won't be a probable for the World Cup, is that right?

No, that is not so either. Because you also have to look at the conditions you are playing in. For instance, if you are going to play on the sub-continent, you might think it is enough to go in with four top batsmen plus Robin Singh, elsewhere you might want five batsmen, it all depends on conditions where you are going to play, as well.

You are now coming to the end of five years as national selector, Mr Rungta, the last few months as chairman of selectors. From that perspective, how has the whole process of team selection changed, during your tenure?

Frankly, I think the biggest change is that we have thrown open Indian cricket, we have produced a situation where any player doing well in domestic cricket, from whatever state, now believes he has a chance to get into the national side. Let me explain -- you think of ten years ago, what was selection like? If, the day before the team selection, I asked you to pick the probable 14, you could easily do that, because the national selection was confined to some 14, 16 players at most. But look at how it is today -- we are ready to pick up any player, from anywhere, selection is now truly open...

Another way of looking at it, Mr Rungta, would be that over 45 players have played for the country in two, three years, and yet the core group has remained the same. Which means that the selectors have tried out about 35 people for say four, or five, berths -- leading to a situation where some players go on tour, don't even get to play a match, and are dropped for the next tour. Is that opening up of cricket, by your definition?

Okay, now let me make some points to you, of my own. Ten years back -- why, even five years back -- if we were asked to pick two teams like this, we would have been in a soup, because outside the top 16, we wouldn't know who to pick. Today, we have comfortably picked two very good sides. Why is that?

Because we tried out so many players -- so today we know what a Mohanty for instance can do, or an M S K Prasad, or Harbhajan, whoever. You talk of the number of people to have played -- but look at all the good players we have discovered. Harbhajan, Sanghvi, Kanitkar, M S K Prasad, Agarkar... that is five new, very good, players in just these last 12 to 14 months, is that a bad record?

You asked about players who go on tour and don't get to play -- but is that our fault? You know as well as I do, from the teams we have picked now, who the playing eleven is likely to be. Now, unless one of them is injured, the others won't get a chance, but that is something we can't do anything about.

Granting that, I would expect to see the same reserves for the next tour, since they haven't done anything to deserve the axe... but you find a player, reserve today, out tomorrow and another player coming in as reserve. Which is when we in the media get critical, we talk of how you are distributing India caps like sweets...

Being with the team for a tour or a tournament is a learning experience, and there is no harm if we want to give as many people as possible the benefit of that experience -- which explains why a reserve of today could be dropped tomorrow. Besides, sometimes, you will find two pace bowlers in the reserves, another time you could find two spinners, or two batsmen, it all depends on the needs of that particular tournament, or tour. Just because we picked two spinners as reserve this time, does it mean we have to pick them again next time, when the team requirement could be something totally different?

There is also the increasingly proactive role the selectors have been playing -- like suggesting batting order, playing XI, that kind of thing. Since when did selectors get all those powers?

Tell me something, where is it written that the selectors can't make suggestions? After all, when we pick a side, we are thinking of batting slots, bowling options, all those things. So what is the harm if we tell the captain, or coach, what our thinking is? We don't dictate, we only suggest, indicate our own thinking.

'Merely suggest', you said. To take one example, the 'mere suggestion' to Sachin was that he either bat number four, or lose the captaincy. Isn't that coercion?

I must ask you this -- did Sachin tell you personally that we told him it was a case of either-or? You check with Sachin, you will find we only suggested that he drop down the order, get back into form, there was no question of any coercion.

The selectors have also come under fire for zonal bias...

What zonal bias are you talking about? When I become a national selector, my only goal is to select the national team, not the zonal side, where is the question of bias?

Examples, Mr Rungta, are your colleague Mr Bannerjee's statement, once, that he didn't want to hear the name of a Bombay player mentioned in his presence, or Ajit Wadekar's more recent statement that he wanted to see more boys from the West Zone making it to the national side. Hardly a national outlook, wouldn't you agree?

See, you are welcome to ask Sambaran and Ajit to explain their statements, it is not my business to comment about that, they didn't make those statements in my presence. No, no, I am not ducking your question ( this, in response to my interjection that his answer was a cop-out). I only said I can't answer questions about whatever statements they have made as individuals. Let me explain...

Why do we have zonal selectors? It is to facilitate monitoring of the players -- after all, our cricket structure is itself divided on zonal lines. So the thinking is that the selector from one zone is in the best position to know the strengths and weaknesses of players from that zone. So naturally, at selection meetings, they tend to put forward the names of players from their region, since those are the players they know about best. But finally, when all five of us get down to choosing the 14, the zones don't matter, out of all the suggestions made, we pick the best team we can pick.

You were a selector during Vishwanath's time. At one point, we had seven Karnataka players, yet no one made a noise about zonal bias. Now, that has changed, selectors are being openly accused of bias -- surely, there has to be some reason for that change in the attitude of the media and the public?

Yes, but I don't think the reason is our bias. Vishwanath is one of India's cricket heroes, so I think the press didn't question him, I am not saying he was biased either, what I am saying is that his decisions were accepted more readily, whereas who am I, Kishen Rungta, compared to a Vishwanath? So you people tend not to give me and my fellow selectors due credit, you question everything we do. Also, I have been thinking lately that maybe we should explain our thinking more often, maybe then we wouldn't be accused of bias.

All of which leads to the big one -- is the zonal system of nominating selectors due for change?

No, I think it is a good system, like I pointed out, the cricket structure itself is zonal, so the system works very well. What a selector needs is knowledge of cricket, and integrity -- if he has those two things, he can be a good selector.

Not experience at the highest level?

Not necessarily. Knowledge is enough. Arre, if you go down and ask a paan-wallah, today, he will pick a good team for you, what experience does he have? You will ask, then what qualifies me to be a selector, if a paan-wallah can do as well. The difference is the paan-wallah will pick from known names -- would the average person have picked say a Harbhajan Singh? That is where knowledge and experience come in.

Selectors themselves are given one-year tenures, and have to seek re-election at the end of that period. Wouldn't a longer tenure help provide continuity of thought?

No, no, why should the selectors have longer tenures? Let them work, prove themselves worthy, merit re-election, why should they be given a free run for a long period? I think this system is just right, one year terms with a maximum of five years...

(At which point, Khumbat tossed that whispered monkey wrench into the interview machinery, as mentioned earlier, and Rungta left, pleading urgent work. However, he did also promise to field any further questions we might have, so hey, wait for it...)

People