.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Selectors' meeting

The captain and coach apparently took advantage of the rain-induced break from cricket to meet with some members of the selection panel.
With a couple of new comers Bhupinder Singh (Sr) and Ranjib Biswal joining the ranks, More is keen to interact with them before they sit in 'judgement' over the future of our cricketers. "Obviously, to work as a team we need to understand each other. But more importantly with the Ranji Trophy season already under way we got to decide about who will be watching which match and when. If we are to pick a national side, we need to know who is doing well on the domestic circuit than merely go by scores and wickets," said More.

Yashpal Sharma, elsewhere in this article, continues his moral crusade against the coach, complete with challenges:
Did Chappell question Yashpal's 'integrity' in front of the other selectors? "I cannot disclose everything now. But I have been labelled as Jagmohan Dalmiya's man and that is not right. I have played cricket with integrity and no one has the right to challenge it. Let Mr Chappell come and challenge it. I am ready."

Err -- just why cannot you disclose everything now? I mean, on one day you've come up with how the coach is frighteningly dictatorial in selection meetings; two days later, in this latest statement there is another revelation -- so why the soap opera treatment? As a senior player and as a selector, you see something wrong happening -- isn't it your responsibility to come out with it, instead of doing the dance of the seven veils? Oh, and here by the way is the latest revelation:
"Chappell wants Ganguly out and all I can say is that Viru (Virender Sehwag), Bhajji (Harbhajan Singh) and Zaheer (Khan) are next in Chappell's list to be chopped from the team."

They said Bajji was going to be axed immediately after the Zimbabwe spat; he's not even been rested in a game since. Viru Sehwag's place in the side was being questioned in several quarters; the Telegraph for instance suggested during the series against South Africa that if there was one more top order collapse, Sourav Ganguly had to be brought into the side, and that Viru Sehwag had been underperforming of late. Interesting to speculate -- had Sehwag in fact been dropped, would it have been for underperformance, as the Telegraph and others suggested was fair, or because Chappell didn't like him?
From the Chappell interview linked to earlier in this day, his take on Sehwag:
When you talk about batsmen scoring quickly one name that comes to mind is Virender Sehwag. But how do you explain the huge diffference between the Test and ODI averages?
Well, he thinks differently in Tests. In one-dayers, he is a high impact player. While he is around, anything is possible. Even in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, he set us up for a few wins but that really didn’t happen. He is a very important player for us in ODIs, whether it is as a batsman or as a bowler — I think he is definitely more than a part-time bowler. And even the creativity that he brings to the team is of great value. All he needs to do is find the right balance between trying to be a high impact player and one who can play big knocks in ODIs. We are giving him the chance to do that.


Post a Comment

<< Home