When a win is not a victory
Sham Samaroo - 11 April 2002

A win for the West Indies or India in this series may not be a good thing for cricket. Yes, you read it correctly. On the surface, it may seem that way, but a win for either team, in the long run, may be a drawback for the game. Let me tell you why.

A win would send the wrong message that the cricket boards - the WICB or the BCCI - have made correct decisions when, in fact, they have not. There has been too much politicking in both West Indian and Indian cricket, and the game has suffered tremendously as a result. Now, nobody is naïve enough to think that cricket and politics are separate. Quite the opposite; for example, the recent decision by the Australians to cancel their tour of Zimbabwe, as well as that of the Indian authorities to suspend cricketing ties with Pakistan, had strong political influences. But in those instances, the politics was understandable and, it may be argued, correct.

Sport and politics have always been close cousins, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking instead about the politics of self-interest, personal agendas and/or favouritism, and its impact on the selection of players, captains, coaches, game-plans and strategy. True, even those decisions sometimes unavoidably have political overtones, but when it comes to the West Indies or India, the recipe continues to be 90 percent politics and 10 percent cricket.

Many recent decisions by the WICB and the BCCI defy logic. The hottest debate at the moment revolves around the retention of coach Roger Harper, but frankly the answer here is a simple one. As the Americans term it, this is a no-brainer. Harper has failed and should have been replaced forthwith - end of story.

This is not based purely his win-loss record. Not at all, in fact. I am referring to the last five Tests, when the bottom half of the batting simply fell out, when the bowlers delivered atrocious line and length, when a number of batsmen were dismissed leg-before-wicket, and when the players repeated their mistakes again and again. These failings clearly indicate a woeful lack of the basics. But however awful this may appear, these are not my pet peeves regarding Harper.

Instead, here is my biggest concern. The fitness of many of the players is second or third rate at best. Eleven catches were dropped in the Tests at Sharjah, and physical fitness and catching are supposed to be Harper's areas of expertise. Harper's explanation for this is player indiscipline, but didn't Kanhai, Roberts, Hall and Richards, all before him, point out the same thing? Harper was given the responsibility of addressing this very problem and, even by his own admission, he has failed.

Meanwhile, the comedy of errors continues over the selection of the team. As if they have learnt nothing from the Sherwin Campbell fiasco, the selectors have gone this time for Stuart Williams and Junior Murray. But Joel Garner, just a few weeks ago, said, "We have to stop looking at tournaments and start looking at development. It makes no sense just picking players to win, when in effect we don't have the quality to win." One step forward, two steps back.

Now to India. In 10 Tests leading up to the recent home series against Zimbabwe, Ganguly had one score over 50 in 20 innings. So why was he even considered for selection, let alone for captaincy? In fact, his record as captain is atrocious. Again, we are not here talking about his win/loss record, but about his leadership style and his tactical decision-making skills. On a scale of one to 10, Ganguly's leadership should be rated four, and that is being generous.

So how is it possible that Ganguly is able to retain the captaincy? He must enjoy the blessings of a certain Jagmohan Dalmiya. Recently coach John Wright found out just how "untouchable" Ganguly is when he hinted that the Indian captain was not working hard enough at training and that his poor fielding was hurting the team. It was very quickly pointed out to Wright that his opinions vis-a-vis Ganguly were not welcome.

Another case in point is Nayan Mongia. Mongia is the best wicket-keeper in India, yet he is not even considered for selection. Instead they picked Deep Dasgupta; how could he be selected ahead of Mongia? Last week, chairman of selectors Chandu Borde explained that Mongia was not considered because, at 32, he is too old. So how were Javagal Srinath and Anil Kumble selected?

During the series against Zimbabwe, a very interesting incident occurred. Word has it that the team manager was literally forced to throw fans out of the Indian dressing room. Fans who, we later learned, were family members of one of the "big bosses" of Indian cricket and who wanted to show off the influence and clout. That, in a nutshell, is why it would be a travesty for either team to win this series.

For comparison, let us look at the Australians, who seem to have a knack for making decisions. If wrong, they correct it and move on. The removal of Steve Waugh, one of the finest captains ever, is a case in point. Not so long ago, Waugh was hailed as the best thing to happen to Australian cricket since Sir Donald Bradman.

But the Australian Cricket Board understands the need to look to the future. There is no rank sentimentality here. If such a decision were ever to be made in the West Indies or India, however, they would probably have a civil war on our hands. The teams, thus, will continue to struggle as long as their respective Boards remain institutions with agendas that are not in the interest of the game. That is why a win in this series would not be a victory for cricket; not only will it leave these problems unresolved, but in addition, the powers-that-be may use it to convince us that they were right all along.

The views expressed above are solely those of the guest contributor and are carried as written, with only minor editing for grammar, to preserve the original voice. These contributed columns are solely personal opinion pieces and reflect only the feelings of the guest contributor. Their being published on CricInfo.com does not amount to an endorsement by CricInfo's editorial staff of the opinions expressed.
© CricInfo

[Archive]