Right decision but handle with care

Irfan Pathan being packed off home mid-way through a tour is not unprecedented in the technical sense and in another context, not the worst thing that has happened to an Indian cricketer. But it could be a trend-setter in the pursuit of ‘performance’ and ‘accountability’, the two dominant themes in Indian cricket in the past few months.

In 1936, for instance, Lala Amarnath was sent back from England on grounds of indiscipline, and in 1996, Navjot Singh Sidhu himself decided to desert the tour of England because he felt insulted by his team management.

On the other hand, in 1986, Manoj Prabhakar did not have to truncate his tour, but was effectively sidelined for the Tests when Madan Lal, who was playing league cricket, was called up for the Tests against England.

While Sidhu appears to have gotten over Azharuddin’s role in his abrupt departure, neither Lala nor Prabhakar ever forgave their respective captains — Vizzy and Kapil Dev — for the ‘humiliation’ they suffered.

Those were, of course, extraordinary situations, but these are unusual times too in Indian cricket. Sure, travel across continents is so much easier nowadays, and the Indian cricket board is rich enough to facilitate such movement. But this, I believe, played a minor part in reaching the decision over Pathan. The issue of performance was the major.

Before choosing the side earlier this month, Dilip Vengsarkar had debated the virtue of pulling out the young swing bowler from the tour and putting him back into domestic cricket to regain his form. “Sometimes it’s only a matter of confidence,” the chairman of the selection committee had said. “It would be good for Irfan’s morale if he was picking up wickets rather than being scored off so heavily.”

Obviously that logic did not find consensus within the selection committee, or was strongly rebutted by Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell. But with Pathan’s bowling form slumping further, support for him appears to have evaporated from all quarters.

Yet, sending a player back while on tour cannot be easy, especially since form at cricket is such a subjective mater, as everybody involved in this decision — Dravid, Chappell and Vengsarkar — would know. Often, regaining form is a matter of one inning, a couple of good spells. Pathan’s case is hardly unusual in the game. Steve Harmison, England’s leading bowler last year, for instance, has struggled badly all through 2006.

It is extremely important, therefore, how the selectors and the BCCI handle the future of the talented youngster from here if this decision is not be misinterpreted and create a fear psychosis among other young cricketers. Clearly, the idea should be to provide him greater match practice to get his rhythm back. I believe he is still crucial to India’s prospects in the World Cup.

Pathan on his part, must handle this setback with equanimity and resolve. He must see this as the opportunity to prove that while form is temporary, class is permanent.