NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Cricket Interview/Ratnakar Shetty

"To be honest, I am not happy with the selection..."

We've been hearing some talk about forming a three-member selection committee... will this eradicate the zonal bias?

I was part of the rules committee that took the decision, we have recommended a three member committee. Besides, in every zone we will appoint two talent scouts who will keep a watch on the players. They will report to the committee about form and such, and the committee will make the selections.

Whose idea was this?

It was proposed by Sunil Gavaskar, Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya also said he would like to have a new arrangement, and so the proposal was given the okay.

Are we then admitting that zonal bias does exist?

As per the present format, selectors have to be appointed every year. In other words, each selector has to be proposed, every year, by the respective zone to which he belongs. So somewhere at the back of the selector's mind there is the thought that you have to keep your zone in good humour. A better option would be for every zone to submit names for the selection committee, and for the final committee to be picked irrespective of zonal considerations.

As per the new system, will the selectors again be honorary?

That's the whole point, the board wants to make the selectors accountable and the only way is to put them on the payroll. As of now, they get their one day before, one day after and of course, the travel and accomodation is reimbursed.

The tenure of the existing committee ends later this month, so can we expect the three member committee to be formed then?

Well, it actually requires a constitutional amendment, only then will it come into practise. So it won't be possible this season, as there is no time, but it will definitely be in force next season, that is, the year 1999-2000.

Before that, we have to first get it passed by the board's general body with a 2/3rd majority.

While on the subject, we also decided that no selector can be an office bearer of any state association, we figured that that will also help prevent zonal bias.

And will it be mandatory that only Test players can be selectors?

That was certainly one of the suggestions made, but then what will you do with players like Padmakar Shivalkar, for instance, who has played in 80 to 90 Ranji matches? We decided that a person, to be considered, has to have at least 50 Ranji games under his belt.

To come to domestic matters, wouldn't you say the sacking of Balwinder Singh Sandhu as Mumbai's coach was not in good taste?

I don't know why the media is using the word 'sack'. A coach's appointment is from October to April, Sandhu came to the end of his tenure and we didn't reappoint him, that is all.

As to why, well, no one is doubting his cricketing contributions, the reasons for his contract not being renewed had to do with his off-field behaviour.

But on the field, Sandhu has really brought the Mumbai team onto the winning track, so...

Well, Mumbai has lifted the Ranji Trophy 33 times, including 15 times in succession, which is a world record, and some of these wins came without a coach, so why this insistence that Sandhu is the reason Mumbai is winning? Sure, with changing times, you do need a coach who can fine tune the players, but that's it, it isn't about any one particular person being coach.

You said something about off-field practises, could you elaborate?

No, I am not entitled to reveal details, doing so could get me into trouble so let's just skip it. But you should know that as a matter of fact, Sandhu became coach by default. Actually Ashok Mankad was to be the coach, but there was a technical hitch, Mankad was a member of the managing committee and the constitution says no managing committee member could take any payment as such. So we appointed Sandhu, and now that Mankad is free, he has been appointed, that is all.

On a broader note, what do you feel about the proposal to enhance the powers of the third umpire?

It is a great move by Mr Dalmiya and I am all for it. (I interrupt at this point, to remind him that Dalmiya has since explained that the new rules will not be implemented from September 1...) Well, I have no such information, as far as I know, from 1st September, 1998, the writ of the third umpire was to be extended beyond just runouts.

To digress, there seems to be a spate of revolts in state associations, Haryana, Karnataka... what seems to be the problem?

Well, the other state associations may have their problems, that is not for me to comment on, but as far as the MCA is concerned, way back in 1987-'88 we passed a resolution that no person could remain in office more than eight years, we have no problems here.

Who would you pick as the players for the future?

In the team as it stands, I would pick Sachin, Agarkar and Saurav Ganguly as the key performers. As for the rising stars, I would suggest that Jatin Paranjpe, Rohan Gavaskar and M S K Prasad are the players to watch out for. Also, Wasim Jaffer, Harbajan Singh, the Kaif brothers...

To end where we started from -- are you absolutely happy with the team selection?

Well, I can't really make a statement about that because we have our own man in the committee (the reference being to Ajit Wadekar, the West Zone selector), and I wouldn't want to embarass him.

But frankly, I am not absolutely happy with the selection, especially with the inclusion of Navjot Singh Sidhu. I mean, here you talk of a team for the future and you have a 34-year-old coming back to the national squad. I have always been against the inclusion of Sidhu at the expense of Rahul, I don't understand how a player of Rahul's class can be warming the benches.

They claim he has a bad strike rate. I think that if you check, you will find that his strike rate and, for that matter, his average, is better and more consistent than that of Sidhu.