PESHAWAR
The Board of Control for Cricket in India's move to send selectors on tourmay have ended up having mixed results. On the one hand, selectors are able tosee for themselves which players have worked hard and which have not. On theother, selectors may have found it hard to agree with some new thoughts cominginto Indian cricket.
"I have been able to watch for myself which players work hard and whichones haven't shown the right attitude. If we were to stay home and watch thecricket on television, we will have little idea of what happens in the dressingroom," a selector told Outlook. "I think it is a very good ideaand will work well for the team."
Clearly, selectors will now have an understanding of what the coach or thecaptain has to say at the meeting of the selection committee, especially when itcomes to players who appear to place their interests above those of the team'sneeds. For many years, they have had to base their own judgment of some playerson the coach/captain's inputs and perhaps on the tour managers' reports.
The genesis of the idea of having a selector on tour lies in thecontroversies that surfaced in Zimbabwe with coach Greg Chappell's response tocaptain Sourav Ganguly, about his need to focus on resurrecting his battingcareer, even if it meant that he had to think of giving up captaincy, which cameout in a question asked of Ganguly at a press conference
After it became evident that it was one man's word against that of another,the BCCI thought it wise to have chairman of selectors Kiran More travellingwith the side during the home series against Sri Lanka and South Africa. Morewas actively involved even at the nets and the Pakistan tour has seen the otherfour selectors come in so far, leaving the chairman to be at hand for the lastthree one-day internationals.
Chappell will be pleased that the selectors have been able to watch andunderstand not only the players but also his own methods. For long, when hespoke of a player being a bad influence on the dressing room, it was assumedthat some player was being nasty or disruptive in the pavilion or the dressingroom. Now, as one selector told me, they can see that if a player is notdelivering his bit for the team, he can cause the others to hold back too.
It is not as if the throw of the dice is always rolling in Chappell's favour.There is a flip side too. "I have a feeling that some of them startthinking about the risk of injury because of all talk of stress fractures of theback or of the shin," a selector said, suggesting that biomechanist IanFraser's influence on the team could be strong – and perhaps detrimental.
"My feeling is that Indian players are more supple than the Australians.Tell me how many Indian bowlers have broken down with back or shin problems? Itis possible that some of our fast medium bowlers have become conscious of thisand slowed down their pace. I intend to talk to the Board president aboutthis," he said.
The selector is uncomfortable that the quicker bowlers do not seem preparedto bend their backs because their minds have been clogged with some theories onstress fractures. Now, Chappell and Fraser may not be amused by such suggestionsbut the selector believes that there is a clash between the cricketing culturesin India and Australia.
So, in some ways, Chappell may have a little task of having to convince moreand more people about the utility of his ways and the staff that he employs inhis bid to make Team India a better, more competitive unit. It will beinteresting to see how such selector/s can either add to Chappell's problems ormake his life a lot easier.
