I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.
If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.
I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.
On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!
Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.
J and Reverse,
Calling More a second rate wicketkeeper was an unfortunate hyperbole on my part. He was, as you say, gutsy, efficient, and combative. My point however was not just about More himself. It was about the selection committee at large, which is today largely made up of cricketers with little or no international stature (note, I used stature, not experience). So a few things can be said here:
1. Remember we hired GC not based on his coaching credentials (which, for South Australia, were abysmal). We hired him for his Great Cricketer aura and his undeniable knowledge of the game.
2. Now COMPARED to GC, one of the game's greats, More himself is indeed almost a non-entity.
3. Given point number 2, I am disturbed by selection meeting 'insider' reports that say the GC bullied and lectured the bunch of selectors. Yashpal Sharma (no mean cricketer himself) said as much, using very strong words (dictatorship) and fielding disturbing signals (Sehwag is the next target). Pranob Roy said nothing different. The evidence is too much to ignore. After Kotla for instance GC apparently started the meeting by aggressively demanding to know what could be the 'agenda' of people who want SG in the team (I doubt there was a single man in the room who could reverse the question and present it to GC himself). Before the Eng series he apparently gave them an hour long lecture (I stress the hour long part, not the fact that the coach was speaking his mind) to make South's Chandrashekhar change his mind about the GC issue. And all this while, please let us not pretend that selection has been fair (AA, Murali Kartik, Kaif).
4. This situation is further complicated by the fact that More himself has been displaying a complete lack of backbone. His explanations for his selectorial decisions waver between the pathetic and the ludicrous. This too has been documented well and I won't comment on it further.
5. My point therefore pertains to an imbalance of power in selection, not to whether More and Jagdale have good track records as selectors (they have, just as SG has as cricketer and captain), or how good they were as cricketers. The imbalance of power is a worrying thing despite the fact that many of GC's decisions might turn out to be correct.
6. It is in this spirit that I broached the name of Gavaskar, but only as an example of someone who can ask GC to go take a walk if necessary. This would not have been a problem for instance if Amarnath or Viswanath were in charge.
Lastly, j, may I ask you who will administer my 'brain washing' shock therapy? Does GC have a chamber where he takes appointments? How was your experience? What about the fees?
AuthorTopic: Balance of power needed. (Read 7246 times)
February 10, 2006, 01:52:43 AM