And this shift in focus is courtesy the national selectors, who have picked four fresh players for the one day tournament featuring South Africa and Zimbabwe, while axing four of the players now doing duty with the national side.

In come Ajay Jadeja, Sunil Joshi, Robin Singh and Salil Ankola. Out go Pankaj Dharmani, Venkatapathy Raju, Woorkeri Raman and David Johnson.

Apparently four of the selectors (the fifth, Shivlal Yadav, was indisposed and could not attend) and BCCI secretary Jagmohan Dalmiya met in Calcutta, tele-conferenced with Indian skipper Sachin Tendulkar and coach Madan Lal in Johannesburg, and then came up with the names to be dropped and their replacements.

They could have saved themselves some time, and quite considerable expense, if they had stopped the first cricket fan passing by and asked for his views - for the average Indian follower of cricket had come up with this shortlist way ahead of the selection committee.

Haryana allrounder and India A skipper Jadeja, who played a stellar role in India's ODI triumphs last year, was one of those who was always expected to return to the national side for the one day games - in fact, his omission from the original squad to South Africa raised not a few eyebrows.

Equally expected was the recall of Tamil Nadu allrounder Robin Singh, who made an impressive comeback in the Titan Cup against Australia and South Africa last autumn.

Joshi gets the nod because of his proven ability, in ODI tournaments last year, to keep the batsmen on a tight rein during the middle overs with his probing flight and turn.

And Salil Ankola gets the go-ahead in place of David Johnson again, perhaps, predictably. True, Johnson was touted in the media (and this includes Rediff) as a potential India mediumpacer - but when analysing the intial rating, it should be remembered that it was made on the evidence of his showing on Indian conditions. Johnson's famous slinging action makes the ball skid through on Indian wickets, accounting for his large haul in domestic tournaments. But on the pacier, bouncier wickets of South Africa, the same action causes the ball to come through at a nice, playable height, permitting the batsmen to go on the front foot early and play their strokes.

Ankola, meanwhile, continues a career wherein he has, thus far, had more experience of travelling that playing. The 28-year-old medium pacer played his first one day game against Pakistan at Gujranwala in the 1989-1990 season, and his last during the February 1996 Wills World Cup against Sri Lanka. In the interven- ing six years, he has been called upon to bowl a mere 94.3 overs (for 414 runs and 11 wickets), a pitiable figure considering that even non-regulars like Jadeja and Tendulkar have bowled much more in the same period of time.

No selection exercise, however, is complete without the glaring omission - and in this case, said omission is that of Vinod Kambli, the Bombay southpaw. Dropped from the Indian side for reasons that had more to do with off-field activities than on-field performance, Kambli could well have imagined himself on the comeback trail after a recent series of very good batting performances, most notably an unbeaten 87 against Lancashire in Calcutta on Friday last. But the selection committee ``considered him'' (we have BCCI secretary Jagmohan Dalmiya's word for that) but de- cided to omit him - without, of course, ever feeling the need to discuss the reason for the omission.

Why, it could be argued, must the national selectors discuss each and every player they either pick or drop?

The reason is simple, and twofold. One, given the results achieved by the Indian side in South Africa, the selectors have been receiving flak for the quota-ruled system of selection of recent teams. An open discussion of the whys and wherefores of each selection exercise, therefore, will help clear the air to a considerable extent.

There is, however, an even more important factor. Take the case of Kambli himself. When he was dropped after the World Cup, then chairman of selectors G R Viswanath clarified that the reasons for his omission were non-cricketing. This not only stilled murmurs among the millions-strong cricket-watching fraternity in India, but more importantly gave the player himself a goal to work towards.

As Kambli himself said in a recent interview, he spent the next few months cleaning up his personal act, and getting his life back on balance. And once this was accomplished, he set out to serve notice that he was back in contention, with a series of good innings.

The national selection committee picked Vikram Rathore, to name just one player, for this tour on the grounds that he had got runs by the tonne in domestic competition. Well, so has Kambli so isn't that player, today, entitled to be told just what more he needs to do, besides cleaning up his personal life and getting runs, in order to get the selectorial nod? Or is he supposed to wander around in limbo, knowing only that his name ``was considered'', and omitted, on grounds no one has cared to inform him about?

If we treat players with such careless disregard, how then do we expect any performance worth the name from them?

In the same vein, take the case of two players who, even now, will be packing their bags prior to returning home from South Africa. One is Pankaj Dharmani, the other, Venkatapathy Raju. When Desai and company were criticised for the inclusion of three wicket-keepers, the answer given was, ``Dharmani has been picked purely as a batsman''.

Today, less than a month later, Dharmani has been dropped - on what evidence? His batting skills, for which he was supposedly picked, has never been really tested (sure, he played for India against Free State in the three-day game this weekend, but if his failure there is the reason why he is being dropped, then the same treatment would be deserved by Saurav Ganguly, to name just one Indian player who flopped in that game), so what grounds are there for his axing?

Ditto Raju - having been picked as a bowler, how does one rationalise his return without having bowled?

This is not the first time players are picked for a tournament, a tour, then axed without ever having been given a chance to perform. And at the end of it all, what we are left with is a pious utterance, by Dalmiya, that the omissions ``are no reflection on their abilities, but due mainly to the demands of the moment''.

Meaning what, precisely?

One has the sneaky feeling that the boat Dharmani and Raju are travelling in now is the same vehicle Salil Ankola will find himself in by the time the one day series ends on February 12. With Prasad and Srinath expected to play, with Kumble as vice captain almost certain to figure in the lineup, with Joshi almost certain to figure in the playing eleven, and with all-rounders Jadeja and Robin Singh also certain to make the final cut, where lies the opening for Ankola? Most especially when you consider that if a third seamer is considered for one of the games, then the choice is more likely to be D Ganesh?

In sum, what hope has Ankola of playing, save in the event both Prasad and Srinath are simultaneously injured or taken ill?

Which, in turn, means that he will sit in the pavilion through yet another series, and at the end of it the selectors will meet again and pick another team, and Ankola will return home with new tales to tell of travelling in South Africa, but no further entries in his cricketing curriculum vitae.

Where lies the method in this madness?

And meanwhile, we have the third Test of the ongoing series beginning within 24 hours of our writing this.

India are already down 2-0 - and by mammoth margins, it must be added.

And yet again, a bunch of arguably talented players appear to have failed to produce the performances that match those talents.

South Africa, meanwhile, has made its intentions clear. Having named the same 11 that played at Cape Town, skipper Hansie Cronje has gone on record as saying he would like to go out with a 3-0 scoreline by winning the third Test as well.

The Wanderers wicket is likely to be as fast as the one at Durban, if not faster.

India still struggles to find an opening pair that can stay put at the crease for at least as long as it takes for the spectators to settle down in their seats.

The tourists, judging by recent utterances of their captain, are going into the final game with just one goal - to avoid the ignominy of a three-nil blackout, and if possible to come out of the series with a 2-1 scorecard that will reflect, in reverse, the situation at the end of the McDowell Series between the two sides, late last year, on Indian soil.

For this to happen, however, some factors will need to fall in place. And the most important of them is the bowling - though Srinath and Prasad have time and again provided the early breakthroughs, Anil Kumble and the other Indian bowlers have proved incapable of following through. With the result that in the previous two Tests, the lower half of the South African batting lineup has invariably got more runs than the top half.

The first essential, therefore, would be for the Indian bowlers to click as a unit, and for Kumble and Ganesh to continue the good work of Srinath and Prasad early on.

And this will happen only if the Indian performance in the field is a total antithesis of what has been witnessed so far. No team can afford to put down as many as nine chances in the course of a single Test, as India did at Cape Town, and still hope to escape unscathed - and if the Indian fielding fails to back up its bowlers yet again, then there goes any hope of a fighting perfor- mance in this final game.

Factor two is the Indian opening - and indications are it will again be entrusted to the Rathore-Mongia combination. The former did get over 150 runs runs in the weekend game against Free State, but facing Donald, Pollock and company on the Wanderers wicket won't be a picnic. Rathore, however, said at the end of the Free State game that he had decided to go for his strokes and therein might lie his best chance, especially in the initial overs when the field is up close and large areas of the outfield are untenanted.

If the openers can get the side off to a decent enough start and in context, lasting out the first hour of the innings, and in the process seeing off Donald and Pollock without loss of a wick

et qualifies as