The talk of a deal between Ganguly & BCCI is absurd

Memonics

Either the newly-constituted selection committee led by the ebullient Krish Srikkanth is scripting a fascinating new chapter to an old story or has missed the plot completely, but Sourav Ganguly’s inclusion for the first two Tests against Australia suggests that this new home season —- like every other — will have its quota of quirks, surprises and comic capers.

Had the issue not pertained to his very survival, I reckon that Ganguly would have been laughing all the way from Kolkata to Bangalore, where he will now, in all likelihood, play the first Test of the series. But Ganguly’s sense of humour is not what it used to be, and who can blame him after the diabolical roller-coaster ride he has been put through over the past 24 months.

There has been widespread talk about some ‘deal’ having been struck between the BCCI and Ganguly that he would be selected to give him an ‘honourable exit’.
Knowing Ganguly’s personality somewhat and ambition a great deal more, I find this suspect in its truth value. But even at the conceptual level, it is absurd.

What would be the usefulness of such a deal if, say, Ganguly were to score 600 runs in the four Tests? Would he still be asked to quit? And what if he scores a pair in the first Test? Would he be still be played in the second? It is not bad thinking to give somebody a ceremonious send-off when he has planned his departure, but when the player himself seems convinced that he has enough cricket left in him for a few years more, this becomes downright demeaning. He should then be treated on form, like everybody else.

The mandarins who run Indian cricket currently have been shouting themselves hoarse that that they are intent on running the establishment on meritocracy. Such contrived situations would hardly be symptomatic of strong professionalism, unless, of course, the BCCI only believes this to the extent of making money and getting cricketers well paid.

It can be argued that Ganguly’s omission from the Irani Trophy match and subsequent inclusion in the Test squad reflects the difference in opinion of the two selections committees which chose the two teams (the Irani side was chosen by Vengsarkar & Co.), but that ignores the unseemly atmosphere which was created about his future ever since the tour of Sri Lanka. His omission was to be a clear warning to the other senior
pros to perform or else... Now, that logic has taken a tumble, at least for the time being.

I hold no brief for or against Ganguly, but surely such confounding signals don’t do any credit to Indian cricket. It leaves the other players in the ‘upper echelons’ of the game vulnerable and cynical, and the budding players completely nonplussed about the systems and processes that drive selection in the country.

Of course, it is also true that there are no clear claimants to Ganguly’s place. The proper recourse would be to phase out the seniors rather than lose all of them at the same time. This would leave a gaping hole in the team as happened when Lillee, Marsh and Chappell quit the Australian team in 1984 and when Greenidge, Haynes, Garner and Richards left in quick succession sending the West Indies into quick decline.

But the fact remains that there have been no middle order batsmen since Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly to have performed with the consistency which earns automatic favour from the selectors. This is a reflection on the impoverishment of the cash-rich Indian cricket. If only the establishment could understand this irony.