Indian Selectors- Jokers OR Puppets??

[foe]

Mohinder Amarnath once famously said that The Indian selectors were a bunch of jokers..
Those selectors may not be around today but if u ask me, todays bunch has more than lived up to that name.

I'm not Bengali nor am i Saurav Ganguly's biggest fan, But the manner of his axing does raise some questions

a)Is it just a coincidence that the moment the control of the Board shifts from Kolkatta to Mumbai, a player from Kolkatta is dropped n one from Mumbai is included in the team?
so are the selectors mere puppets in the hands of the Board?

b)Why is it that Ganguly is replaced by an opener? Shouldnt Gautam Gambhir have been replaced by Jaffer?

c)Whatever happened to their recent Policy of not changing a "winning combination"?

d) whats the nonsense about it being unfair to select Ganguly in the 16 n then keep him on the bench? Wasnt Kumble kept on the bench for months (in the Odi squad) despite the fact that he is India's leading ODI wicket taker?

e)shouldnt there be some criteria For guys to get into the selection panel?
Is playing a few first class games for MP or Orissa enough?as far as i know,2 of the selectors havent played international cricket at all...another 2 have played a total of 5 or 6 ODI"s in their career

So are the selectors a)jokers or b)puppets in the hands of Board officials or is it secret option c ) That they are geniuses who can see something no one else can

 

[Deja moo]

c)

 

[honestbharani]

I think in this particular instance, the selectors have done the right thing.

 

[deeps]

imo, he had done enough to be kept.

Ganguly was well known as a great batsman a few years ago, before he took up the captaincy. Once he took the captaincy, his batting has been on a downward spiral.

39 and 41 are pretty good scores, and he was starting to look confident. He should have been given one last series to try and prove himself.

I'm not a Ganguly fan, infact i can't stand him. But i feel the selectors made a mistake.

 

[SJS]

Mohinder Amarnath once famously said that The Indian selectors were a bunch of jokers..
Those selectors may not be around today but if u ask me, todays bunch has more than lived up to that name.

I'm not Bengali nor am i Saurav Ganguly's biggest fan, But the manner of his axing does raise some questions

a)Is it just a coincidence that the moment the control of the Board shifts from Kolkatta to Mumbai, a player from Kolkatta is dropped n one from Mumbai is included in the team?
so are the selectors mere puppets in the hands of the Board?

b)Why is it that Ganguly is replaced by an opener? Shouldnt Gautam Gambhir have been replaced by Jaffer?

c)Whatever happened to their recent Policy of not changing a "winning combination"?

d) whats the nonsense about it being unfair to select Ganguly in the 16 n then keep him on the bench? Wasnt Kumble kept on the bench for months (in the Odi squad) despite the fact that he is India's leading ODI wicket taker?

e)shouldnt there be some criteria For guys to get into the selection panel?
Is playing a few first class games for MP or Orissa enough?as far as i know,2 of the selectors havent played international cricket at all...another 2 have played a total of 5 or 6 ODI"s in their career

So are the selectors a)jokers or b)puppets in the hands of Board officials or is it secret option c ) That they are geniuses who can see something no one else can

If they are jokers or puppets then they have been so all these years.

We cant call them jokers and puppets because they drop a player we support and change our minds when they dont.

Indian selection system has its faults with zonal representation and its associated trading for places in the side for one's own zone's players.

This needs to be changed with zonal system removed and captain and coach co-opted with a single vote each for them too.

Till that is done the system is what we have.

Puppets are puppets whether the strings are pulled by Dalmia or Pawar.

In this case the choice was difficult. I may have been marginally inclined to include ganguly in the next game in place of Yuvraj but the choice is so marginal that a decision in favour of Yuvraj cant be termed as a sign of skull duggery and worse.

This is, of course, with the final eleven in mind.

As far as keeping Ganguly on the bench is concerned. This is not done. Kumble's example is not appropriate. Kumble was not an immediate past skipper. There is an unwritten convention that past captains should be taken in the squad only if they are going to be in the eleven.

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

I absolutely hate Ganguly but with the scores he made in 2nd test match i think that should have been enough to keep his place.......i feel the selectors have made a big mistake

 

[open365]

whats the point in dropping him after he made 2 ok scores in the match?

 

[Sanz]

In this case the choice was difficult. I may have been marginally inclined to include ganguly in the next game in place of Yuvraj but the choice is so marginal that a decision in favour of Yuvraj cant be termed as a sign of skull duggery and worse.

This is, of course, with the final eleven in mind.

As far as keeping Ganguly on the bench is concerned. This is not done. Kumble's example is not appropriate. Kumble was not an immediate past skipper. There is an unwritten convention that past captains should be taken in the squad only if they are going to be in the eleven.

People like SJS would go to any extent to convince us that this was the right decision ignoring the fact that Ganguly was not replaced by Yuvraj Singh but by an Opener .

Unwritten Convention...

Now where are those who ridiculed Ganguly for being in the team as an allrounder..(although he never said a word on this)..what do they have to say on replacing a middle order batsman with an opener who averages 20 in test cricket.

Here are few reactions from some past cricketers :-

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=341827

Prasanna also expressed surprise over the inclusion of opening bat Wasim Jaffer in place of Ganguly, who was playing in the middle order

"..If they wanted Jaffer in the side, then the selectors should have dropped Gautam Gambhir.." - Prasanna

Ridiculing the selectors, Azad said that it seemed the "five wise men had set standards even higher than what one finds in Australia."

"You cannot replace a middle order batsman with an opener. It has never happened in the history of Indian cricket." WADEKAR

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2005/dec/14wadekar.htm

Waiting for Einstien to come and declare all of them as IDIOTS..let me guess Einstien is under a mosquito net..he cant read this..

 

[Sanz]

are the selectors a)jokers or b)puppets

Both..anyways here is a pop quiz :-

Question :-

1. Who scored more runs @ Kotla ?
a. Ganguly b.Yuvraj c. Gambhir

2. Who was involed in crucial partnership in both innings ?
a. Ganguly b.Yuvraj c.Gambhir

3. Who was more comfortable against SL bowlers in both innings ?
a. Ganguly b. Yuvraj c.Gambhir

4. Who averages more in last 5 tests ?
a. Ganguly b. Yuvraj c. Gambhir

5. Who plays for Bengal ?
a. Ganguly b. Yuvraj c. Gambhir

 

[The Argonaut]

They obviously needed another opener in the squad.Dravid was used in the first innings and Pathan in the 2nd. Neither is suitable even though Pathan got 93 in his innings. Why wasn't Laxman given a go. He has scored plenty as an opener. A couple of years ago Yuvraj was put forward by Ganguly as an opener. Where is Sehwag anyway? He must be injured.

Someone had to go for an opener and it had to be Ganguly or Yuvraj. Youth won out.

 

[R_D]

Ganguly made ok scores but did anyone see his strike rate ? which clearly shows that he's strugglin big time and yes i realise Yuvraj was just as slow. But given the choice who would you pick a 33 year old washed up strugglin player or a 24 year old with big future ahead of him.
As for Gambhir well he's struggled in 3 innings so far in this series but we need to give him a fair go before we can make any decisions on him. It be bit tough on him to drop him after just few failures where's Ganguly's been underperforming for a while now. I'm bit amazed by Jaffer getting picked but i assume they want a replacement opner for last test incase Sehwag isn't fit to play. We already have Kaif as replacement for middle -order.

I don't see what the big fuss is. selectors have made the right decision.

 

[Dasa]

The selectors have indeed made the right decision. They picked a reserve opener should Sehwag not be fit for the 3rd Test. They dropped Ganguly because Yuvraj played much better than him and he's one for the future. They didn't keep Ganguly in the squad because it would have been hard on him and the rest of the team to keep him, a former captain and someone who once had a great deal of influence on the bench. Seems simple to me.

 

[SJS]

This is from another thread but as appropriate here so I am posting it.

You are right to an extent but
1. The way the media has been trying to encash the Ganguly-Chappell fiasco there would have been a controversy whatever the selectors did
2. There are eleven players for the eventual side and four on the bench. These include one spinner (Murali Karthik), one new ball bowler (RP), one middle order bat (Kaif) and, now, one opener. This seems right. They had it wrong when they tried to show, before the first test, that this wasnt the case and put Ganguly in there as an all rounder.
3. I dont know whether Gambhir will play or Jaffer but even if Gambhir is playing, having Jaffer IN the squad puts ectra pressure on him and this management seemd bent on trying people out under pressure. Not a bad situation.

Having said that, I think they still handled this very badly.

1) Getting Ganguly in by the backdoor (this all rounder bit) was silly. They should have taken him as a batsman or not at all. I know this was done by an earlier selection committee but then it should have been clarified after the committee was changed that he was playing purely as batsman. Calling him all rounder, justifying his inclusion over Zaheer with that and then not bowling him even once in this test is bound to have a reaction.
3. Having selected Ganguly, they should have decided what they want to do with him.
- If they had made up his mind that this was his swan song, he should have been told so at the beginning of the series and then played in all three games and given the respect and the fitting farewell that he deserved at the end of such a glorious career.
- If they wanted to treat him like any other player then they should have let him be in the squad for the third test and let Dravid decide on the day of the match whether he wants him in the final eleven or not.
4. The amount of muck the media has been raising for more than a month now isnt funny. The board should have gone ahead got their stance on this clarified through a proper communication be it a press conference or a specific statement. Letting speculations and allegations fly thick and fast and pretending that nothing is happening only made things more difficult for the selectors and very awkward for the captain and coach.

This should have been avoided at all cost.

My personal take is EITHER Ganguly should have been told his career is over at the beginning OR he should have been told this is his last series OR he should have been told he will be played for all three games and his future decided on his performance, those of others and all other ramifications of his being in the team (call it his conduct if you please) at the end of the series.

This is a mess and the authorities have to take some blame for at least the poor handling of a delicate situation.

Now its done and we should go ahead and play some cricket. Going on and on about it can do nothing but harm.

PS: One thing that I forgot. While I am a strong advocate of an opener being a specialist, going into the second test WITHOUT one seemed to be odd. Why didnt they remember to get a specialist opener then? This opens them to the allegation that this was to get Yuvraj in and now that he has got his runs they dont need that excuse. Someone is bound to say that if Yuvraj had scored fewer runs, they may have still opened with Pathan or someone else.

 

[foe]

Opinion seems to be divided

Polls on Major news channels in India see overwhelming support for Ganguly..

Seems like the powers in Indian cricket wanted Yuvraj in the team at any cost for the second test knowing that any big score from him would provide them the perfect excuse to chuck out Ganguly

 

[Jono]

I'm happy with the move.

 

[irfan]

Me too. Yuvraj is the future, Ganguly is the past - although as SJS and several others mentioned that this should be his swansong series and given a chance to gout on a hi

 

[Pratters]

b)Why is it that Ganguly is replaced by an opener? Shouldnt Gautam Gambhir have been replaced by Jaffer?

One reserve opener replaced by an opener. Yuvraj being preferred over Ganguly, then Kaif being preferred over Ganguly and then a reserve opener considered the better thing to have that two reserve middle order batsmen.

 

[Pratters]

c)Whatever happened to their recent Policy of not changing a "winning combination"?

Different bunch of jokers err selectors choosing the side this time. But regardless of that it was more of a comment to try and justify retaining a squad than a policy.

 

[Pratters]

Regarding the question of selectors being a bunch of jokers/puppets.

One of the many flaws in Indian cricket (I can write a whole book on it but it wouldnt solve any problem!) is zonal selectors.

5 selectors compirising one from each zone. The zone replaces the selector if it finds its selector to be 'not good enough.' How will the zone judge a selector - by how many players he can bring into the squad from the zone he is representing.

It means a lot of unnecessary pressure on the selectors when the selection committee should really be an independent body in the true sense of the word.

 

[Pratters]

e)shouldnt there be some criteria For guys to get into the selection panel?
Is playing a few first class games for MP or Orissa enough?as far as i know,2 of the selectors havent played international cricket at all...another 2 have played a total of 5 or 6 ODI"s in their career

A criteria should be there - proven selection abilities at lower levels. It is not necessary to play international cricket to be a good selector or coach. International cricketers can be very poor selectors too as we know.