Retired Unheard

Few cricket fans would have read the news of Mohammed Azharuddins exclusion from the Indian cricket team without a flash of anger. Even if it is conceded that he needed to be reminded of his duties and obligations to the team though I dont think he needs any such reminder this was hardly the way to do it.

There had to be a more graceful way, such as perhaps retaining him in the 14 but not picking him for the opening match. That would have been a better way of indicating that he needed a rest. But to drop him altogether is not just plain boorishness, it could also be counter-productive. The Indian team is still very young and despite his poor form, a man of Azhars experience contributes in a variety of not so obvious ways.

 

The manner of his exclusion also suggests that Azhar is being punished for reasons that have nothing to do with cricket and the Board is simply sending a message to future defiers of its diktats. Thus, though the official charge against Azhar is that he played irresponsibly and scored too few runs, anyone who saw the manner in which he got out will tell you that each time it was just bad luck awkward bounce, excessive turn, bad umpiring decision or simply a fantastically good ball. The simple fact is that a batsman is as likely to get out playing a good shot as a bad one.

Recall, in this context, that extraordinary leaping, one-handed catch by Shaun Pollock right on the boundary line. The man out was Tendulkar and the shot was a perfect one. The ball simply stuck in Pollocks hand. Likewise that catch, again off Tendulkar by Jonty Rhodes when, in fact, the ball had touched the ground.

The key issue, meanwhile, is whether by dropping Azhar the team has been strengthened. It isnt at all obvious that it has. Gagan Khoda, a rookie, comes in for Navjot Sidhu and Kambli for V V S Laxman. But who comes in for Azhar? Nobody.

Eventually, the Board will have to face up to the unavoidable fact: if workers (ie the players) are expected to be more professional, then the management (ie the Board), too, will have to become more professional. Gone are the days when the game could be run by a private club of amateurs. It has become too big for that.

This doesnt mean that only former Test players will make good managers of the game. Far from it. But it does mean that there have to be clear-cut rules and, even more importantly, far greater accountability for the management. Feudalism at one end and professionalism at the other just isnt possible.

At present the Board is accountable to none. But even though its President insists that the selectors are not influenced by the Boards preferences, given the manner in which the business end of the game is organised, the Boards wishes cannot be easily ignored by the selectors.

That is why it is difficult to believe that Azhar has been dropped only because of his indifferent performance in the West Indies. That is also why there is such a pressing need to make the management of cricket more professional and transparent.

One way of doing that would be to convert the Board into a joint stock company. But more of that next time.