Do Test Players Make the Best Selectors?
I read sometime ago an article by Makarand Waigankar on how badly chosen the selectors from many associations were. This, he says, despite the presence of many test players around. Most Chairmen have played few test matches. I can understand the angle from which he is coming but I am not fully in alignment with his thought that Test players alone can make great selectors. It's like saying that the guy who came first in the Civils should lead the country.
For one, other than Mumbai or Delhi where have Test players by the dozen most other associations do not have that luxury. Secondly, being a good player does not automatically make you a better captain or coach or a selector or an administrator. I am surprised how often people make these connections. Yes, there is a respect that comes with having played better and greater cricket and having the benefit of the exposure. People do respect you for that too. But not for long if you don't deliver in other roles. Many times great players have made bad captains, coaches, selectors and administrators. The answer is simple - they are all roles that need specific skill sets.
Now what would you rate a selector on. Knowledge of the game, an eye for putting the right team together and thirdly, integrity. In fact most selections come with this word first - just and fair. Selections have to be just and fair to earn any credibility and only then comes the eye to spot the talent that will deliver. To be fair as a selector requires meticulous preparation, information gathering, analysis, understanding player motivations and psyche and doing what's best for the team finally.
If a Test player has all these, well and good. But just because one has played Tests, one does not automatically qualify - though in Waigankar's case, or in Mumbai's case, the concerned Test players may first be filtered for all these qualities and only then must the bar go below. The selectors must have time, energy, an understanding of human psychology, of the technicalities of the game certainly, commitment, loyalty and capability to build teams to deliver for the purpose i.e. to win games. It may however be possible that others may have all of these and an enthusiasm to do a good job and they must certainly qualify too.
Should the Game Only Promote Entertainers?
I saw an article by Ted Corbett about how one is better off choosing KP over Andy Flower because KP is an entertainer. I disagree completely. The game of cricket is a team game and we go to wtch great teams compete, not merely great individuals who compromise their team by their individualistic behavior. Many have been sacrificed for the team's greater purpose - the game is greater after all and so is the team. To back KP and not back the Coach on the basis of who entertains more is not acceptable. Give me a fighting unit any day where the team members stand next to one another like brothers, fight together as one, play for the team and their country, feel the pain, any day. That is what sport is all about to me. I'd any day sacrifice the person in the unit who sticks out because of his hubris simply because he is compromising everyone else in the team. And if the Coach feels that the team is greater than the individual and that the individual is harming the team's interest, I'd not hesitate to counsel the player and then, if he still behaves in the same manner, remove until the lesson is learned.
For entertainment I have far better options than watch ill mannered, egoistic players strut about on losing sides or resort to posturing.
I read sometime ago an article by Makarand Waigankar on how badly chosen the selectors from many associations were. This, he says, despite the presence of many test players around. Most Chairmen have played few test matches. I can understand the angle from which he is coming but I am not fully in alignment with his thought that Test players alone can make great selectors. It's like saying that the guy who came first in the Civils should lead the country.
For one, other than Mumbai or Delhi where have Test players by the dozen most other associations do not have that luxury. Secondly, being a good player does not automatically make you a better captain or coach or a selector or an administrator. I am surprised how often people make these connections. Yes, there is a respect that comes with having played better and greater cricket and having the benefit of the exposure. People do respect you for that too. But not for long if you don't deliver in other roles. Many times great players have made bad captains, coaches, selectors and administrators. The answer is simple - they are all roles that need specific skill sets.
Now what would you rate a selector on. Knowledge of the game, an eye for putting the right team together and thirdly, integrity. In fact most selections come with this word first - just and fair. Selections have to be just and fair to earn any credibility and only then comes the eye to spot the talent that will deliver. To be fair as a selector requires meticulous preparation, information gathering, analysis, understanding player motivations and psyche and doing what's best for the team finally.
If a Test player has all these, well and good. But just because one has played Tests, one does not automatically qualify - though in Waigankar's case, or in Mumbai's case, the concerned Test players may first be filtered for all these qualities and only then must the bar go below. The selectors must have time, energy, an understanding of human psychology, of the technicalities of the game certainly, commitment, loyalty and capability to build teams to deliver for the purpose i.e. to win games. It may however be possible that others may have all of these and an enthusiasm to do a good job and they must certainly qualify too.
Should the Game Only Promote Entertainers?
I saw an article by Ted Corbett about how one is better off choosing KP over Andy Flower because KP is an entertainer. I disagree completely. The game of cricket is a team game and we go to wtch great teams compete, not merely great individuals who compromise their team by their individualistic behavior. Many have been sacrificed for the team's greater purpose - the game is greater after all and so is the team. To back KP and not back the Coach on the basis of who entertains more is not acceptable. Give me a fighting unit any day where the team members stand next to one another like brothers, fight together as one, play for the team and their country, feel the pain, any day. That is what sport is all about to me. I'd any day sacrifice the person in the unit who sticks out because of his hubris simply because he is compromising everyone else in the team. And if the Coach feels that the team is greater than the individual and that the individual is harming the team's interest, I'd not hesitate to counsel the player and then, if he still behaves in the same manner, remove until the lesson is learned.
For entertainment I have far better options than watch ill mannered, egoistic players strut about on losing sides or resort to posturing.
No comments:
Post a Comment