NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

The joker in the pack

I was casually glancing over the transcript of an interview national selector and former captain Ajit Wadekar has given my colleague Faisal Sharif. (Watch for it, by the way -- we will be carrying it in our edition dated July 27.)

A little line caught my attention. Wadekar, who has spent decades in top flight cricket, as player, captain, coach and now selector, says he is unaware that the Indian cricket captain is a full-fledged member of the national selection committee, and has the deciding vote on team selection.

Strange. I would have assumed -- naively, I now realise -- that the first thing you do, when you become a national player, much less reach the exalted realms of captain/manager to get hold of a copy of the Board of Control for Cricket in India's constitution, and give it a look-see.

After all, this is the body that governs Indian cricket's destinies. As captain of a side, you are involved in the country's cricketing destiny. Isn't it then incumbent on you to know your onions, in a manner of speaking?

Since the norms governing a captain's presence appears to be completely unknown in our cricketing circles, maybe the time has come to publish them, and to do a running analysis of their implications.

The relevant clause entered the Board's constitution via a resolution dated August 15, 1947, passed during the BCCI's 18th annual general body held in New Delhi under the aegis of then president Anthony S de Mello.

The portion that concerns the captain -- and remember, this is official minutes we are quoting here -- reads: "The selection committee comprised Colonel C K Nayudu (chairman), Professor D B Deodhar, Dr Jehangir Khan, Mr P E Palia, Mr V M Merchant (captain, coopted) and Mr P Gupta (convenor).

"The selection committee met six times. In this connection, we consider it relevant to record here that for the first time, the status of the captain of the Indian team, as a member of the selection committee, was clearly defined.

"In the past, the captain was co-opted in the selection committee in an advisory capacity. Falling in line with other great cricketing countries, we have now given the captain of our national team the status of a full-fledged member of the selection committee.

"It was agreed that the committee, with the captain, would select the team and, in the event of no majority agreement, the captain's wish, in regard to the selection of a player, would prevail. This is exactly what the MCC does, when it selects its national team."

Thus spake the BCCI, officially, circa 1947.

Look at the key bits in the above resolution. First: ...for the first time, the status of the captain of the Indian team, as a member of the selection committee, was clearly defined. Meaning, that this is the ruling definition, until and unless further amended. Which, for the record, it never has been.

So what is the captain's role in selection, as officially defined? ...we have now given the captain of our national team the status of a full-fledged member of the selection committee. Meaning? Just this: the captain is not, as is being made out to be in the recent past, attending the selection committee meeting in an advisory capacity. Neither is he there by invitation. He is there as a matter of right, as a full-fledged selector.

Pause here, for a moment, to ask yourself this: who gave Jayant Lele and the gang of five under the late Ramakant Desai the right to subvert the BCCI's own written norms, and to hold selection meetings in the absence of the captain -- something that happened once apiece, during the tenures of both Tendulkar and Azharuddin?

Simply put, the situation is this: No representative team, selected in the absence of the national cricket captain, is valid!

Now go further into the definition: It was agreed that the committee, with the captain, would select the team and, in the event of no majority agreement, the captain's wish, in regard to the selection of a player, would prevail.

First, this explicitly says the captain is actively involved in selection, and not present merely in an advisory capacity. In other words, his wishes count on par with those of the other selectors.

Second and more important, the clause very clearly, explicitly, gives the casting vote to the captain -- something, apparently, that neither Wadekar, who was once a skipper and is now selector, nor successive captains after him, were not aware of.

If you go back to where we quote the clause, you will find that the selection committee comprises just four names, not including the captain.

This was subsequently amended, and the number of selectors raised to five. A clever move, ensuring that the selectors would never be deadlocked at two votes apiece in favour of any player -- and thus, that the captain would never get the chance to trump the selectors' ace.

But there is one aspect that deserves a closer look. The captain obviously has a vote. What happens, then, if he decides to cast it at the next selection meeting? Say a name is proposed. The captain casts his vote against. First up, the captain's vote becomes a matter of record -- and with that, selectors no longer will be able to get away with saying, as Desai and company so often did in the past, that the team selected was in line with the captain's wishes.

Take that further -- suppose (and again, such instances have been quite common, especially in the recent past when selection politics was raised to a new high -- or more accurately, descended to a new low) the voting for one particular player stands at 3-2.

The selectors, faced with such a pattern, have gone ahead and picked the player, figuring that the majority rules.

What if, at the next committee meeting, such a situation arises, and the captain decides to cast his vote, which is his right? Suppose his vote deadlocks the question at 3-3.

Then, as per the Board's rules and by every rule of logic, the captain's vote should have the casting power.

In other words, the national selectors are not as impregnable within their little fortress as they think they are. All it takes, to rattle their cage, and begin the process of bringing some sanity to the prevailing madness, is for a captain who knows the rules.

And who, when it comes to it, will insist on their adherence -- firstly, by insisting on his right to be present as a full fledged selector, and secondly, by casting his vote officially.

Prem Panicker