CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

In the past days and weeks, Sri Lankans have indulged in one of their favourite pastimes: That of criticising others. The venom was directed at our cricket team. Much of it personal, while others covered the full gamut from the CEO to the physiotherapist.

Let me avoid this trap and try to establish, Where and Why we went wrong. The responsibility must begin with the National Selectors and to a lesser extent the Tour Selectors. I could not understand the selection of Hathurasinghe. He is past his best and any number of young players could have replaced him as an all - rounder. One must also question the exclusion of Ruchira Perera, who displayed promise on the Australian tour. With Sanath's form and fitness in question, Aviska Gunawardene or Russel Arnold should have been included.

The selectors on tour started the rot by leaving Mahela Jayawardena out of first game. They then sent Tilekeratne in at No. 4, Why? The early order batsmen were struggling and the situation was exacerbated by constant changes in the batting order. One had to feel for Mahanama. He did his job where ever he batted.

With Sanath struggling, Why was he not dropped to the No. 6 spot where he could have batted with the soothing effect of the skipper at the other end. That was a very poor and costly mistake. There were enough guys who could have opened, - Atapattu, Mahanama, and Kaluwitharana.

The fielding showed a marginal improvement. We did field like in the old days in the South African game. But we were not consistent. And it showed.

In 1996 Sri Lanka revolutionized the one-day game with an all out attack in the first 15 overs; that was not the appropriate tactic under English conditions. The other teams played continuously till the ball was old enough to play attacking cricket. They accelerated the paced in the last 15 overs. But Sri Lanka went the old route on the promise that what was good enough then, was good enough now. The loss of form by Sanath and Aravinda at the same time was too great a set back for a struggling team to overcome.

We now have to review the position of the Coach. Our record since Roy Dias took over can only be described charitably as poor. But in his defence one must remember that he had to deal with coaches, of slowbowling, fast-bowling, and fielding! This meant a dilution of his authority: and no coach can function effectively in such an atmosphere.

We are always confronted with the question of whether the coach be local or foreign. The disadvantage of the local coach is that he could be subjected to unhealthy pressure from friends and relatives of players, some of whom could be powerful persons and capable of exerting adverse pressure on the coach. The other consideration is that the local coach could come with pre-conceived ideas about some of the players which could eventually lead to confrontations.

This could have deleterious effect on the whole team. Such conditions led to Javed Miandad's departure as coach of the Pakistan team, just a short time prior to the World Cup.

For these reasons, I would lean towards having an experienced foreign coach to guide us through the painful re-structuring that has to happen with the least possible delay.

One damaging statistic is that while all teams that participated in the 1996 World Cup had 5 to 6 new faces, Sri Lanka had only 2. This means that our cricket development programs are not working or the selectors are wearing blinkers. I suspect that it is a combination of both.

We have to take a close look at our current programs to see what is wrong. Although the Board pays lip service to developing cricket in the provinces, I can't see what they have done. I can speak of Kandy and its environs. Nothing of permanent value has been established.

The under 17 and under 19 tams are the most important squads, since it is here that the future national players are groomed. By the age of 19 or even earlier, all the basics must be in place. After that it is difficult to make corrections. We have to establish Cricket Academies in Kandy and another in Galle to supplement the one in Colombo. (These should take precedents over a stadium in Dambulla).

There is absolutely no doubt about the availability of talent. The question is what are we doing to harness this talent? As Napoleon once said ``Talent without opportunity is a waste''.

There is no need to panic. The older players should think of retiring and put something back to the game by taking up coaching. Sri Lanka is lucky when compared to Pakistan and West Indies. In Pakistan there is no organised school cricket and in the West Indies there are 4 or 5 private schools that play cricket. The development of cricket is entirely done by the clubs. Yet they have produced so many great cricketers.

So, let's stop moaning and get on with the job of restoring our cricket to the standards commensurate with the abundant talent available.

We now have to deal with the all important question of captaincy. Arjuna has already declared his intention to carry on. I am disappointed because he has now put the ball in the selectors court. Sooner than later they have to find a new captain. For a man who has done so much for cricket in Sri Lanka, He has put himself in a position when he will be relieved of his captaincy. Would it not be more dignified if he makes himself the decision? Should be dropped from the captain's role I hope he will not want to play regardless of who gets his job. To have Arjuna in the team, is going to make things very difficult for the new captain.

Who will inherit the Ranatunga's mantle? I see three possible candidates: Mahanama, Sanath, and Mahela. I would not go to Mahela for fear of his catching the ``Tendulkar Virus''. He has lots of time. Between Mahanama and Sanath, I prefer Roshan. Why? First and foremost he still a very good fielder. This is vital, because unless he is, how could he chastise a team-mate for sloppy fielding. I also have seen him captain the Sri Lanka team in Sarjah a few years back.

He handled his bowlers well, and was outstanding in the field. The only question is whether he is good enough to make the side on his own merits. I say yes, He has been up and down the batting order. Yet he has never complained and always has given his best. The World Cup showed us that, whoever it is, I hope the selectors will make the move now.

I feel the Board of Control should make an effort to get some of our promising youngsters an opportunity to play a season or two abroad, particularly in England and Australia. We have terrific supporters in both countries and they will do whatever needed to assist the Board in this important venture. All the members of the Test playing counties have 3 or 4 players who have had overseas expereince. A good example is Zimbabwe. Paul Strang, Andy Whittal, Neil Johnson, Heath Streak, Andy Flower, John Robinson have played first class cricket overseas. The strides the team has made in the past 12 months is nothing short of phenomenal. And this is attributable to the expereince gained by the players named above.

It is hoped by all Sri Lankans that the Board will settle its own internal problems amicably and promptly, so that they can come to grip with the important task of getting our cricket back on track.