Aug 28 2009
Forced Retirements, not Voluntary, Disguised and Disgusting
When a player makes his foray into the national team, he does so on the basis of his own merit and potential and because the selectors see something in him that says, he is the future. So, why should it be any different when a player retires?
It could be argued that the basis for going out conversely applies for coming in. The logic that applies for entry must conversely apply for the decision for an exit. The problem is that in most cases, selections are politicized and in that, it follows the law of the jungle that is the business, that even decisions to keep someone out are also mired in politics.
The Indian cricket world has been rocked by speculation that the seniors in the team are being offered the option of voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) in order to usher in a new team without creating cause for consternation with the seniors on their way out. The sensation that the news has created has unsettled quite a few members of the Indian team and also, administrators within the board. Skipper Anil Kumble felt it necessary to clear the air and state that no such policy was in existence with the board and all of it was fabricated by the media.
Sourav Ganguly denied there was a deal in hand as did the BCCI. But consider the scenario why the speculation has been raised surrounding his selection for the first two Tests against Australia. The deferring of the Champions Trophy to next year meant that cricket enjoyed a rare month of lay off in September. In that time, it gave Indian fans a rare opportunity to watch virtually all their players in action and some against each other in the span of one important domestic match. The Irani Trophy, the season opener that involved the Rest of India team and the Ranji Trophy champions, in this case Delhi, saw virtually all members of the Indian national team, all except Ganguly.
The axe, it was speculated, had fallen on Ganguly, signaling the virtual end of the international career of India’s most successful former captain. But the problem compounded when the selection panel changed with the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the BCCI, separating the Irani Trophy and the home series against Australia. So, while the Dilip Vengsarkar-led selection panel left Ganguly out of the Irani Trophy tie, the new selection panel headed by Kris Srikkanth made Ganguly’s inclusion for the first two Tests at home against Australia their first major and also, most contentious decision.
If there was no talk of a policy of forced retirements (far from voluntary as the term would suggest in this case), it could well be argued that Ganguly’s decision perhaps would not have even come. If the new selectors were showing faith, was it not worth prolonging one’s career or at least hoping it was? After all, most experts in cricketing circles opined that no player could be judged on the basis of one series. In that context, would Ganguly, who had staged a dramatic comeback two years ago and has not looked back since, think he was suddenly not good enough for the game? He was, in all likelihood, considered the most vulnerable of the five and the axe came down soft and easy. While it is easy to imagine that Ganguly saw little future after being dropped by the previous selection committee, the fact that he was picked by the new panel should have brushed any thoughts of retirement from his mind. Why did he not use the opportunity to vindicate the faith of the new panel and continue on? Once again, the fingers pointed, erroneously or otherwise, to perhaps something in the making that prompted Ganguly to make this decision. After all the Indian seniors have been a reluctant lot in calling it a day on their own, necessitating the need and talk of the scheme in the first place.
The grapevine had it that Ganguly’s selection could only have been contrived, an opportunity to bid his adieus if he agreed to announce that Australia would his last international series and that similar decisions were being asked to make by the others as well. When the Test series selections were formally announced, the speculation gathered steam. But that was not the last of it. The buzz gathered momentum with Anil Kumble being announced skipper of the first two Tests and his own form not particularly scintillating on the tour to Sri Lanka. With his performance in the first Test then that yielded not a single wicket for only the third time in his career and a sore shoulder severely hampering his efforts in the field with the ball as well as in the leadership department, his being a non starter for the Mohali Test was virtually painted across the wall. All the negative factors, speculation said, colluded to usher in another impending announcement and perhaps another conniving deal. Kumble were certainly riled and in many ways he was certainly within his right to be. But that he was getting to him was a telling revelation. What there more frustration than what meets the eye?
The problems with the voluntary retirement scheme, if it does exist, is multifold. Firstly, it shows the selection committee in a poor light. Decisions are not always as straightforward as dropping a player on form despite an illustrious career. But that is what selectors are being paid for – to make the studied decision that will steer the country and team forward. With the system in place under the disguise of giving the player time to choose when he bows out of the team and game, they are essentially asking the players to do their job but giving them a framework of time in which to say goodbye.
Whether a player continues to represent the team or not depends on his own form over a certain period of time in the context of his career thus far and also, upon the selectors’ foresight on what is best for the team under the circumstances or in planning the future. By passing the buck back to the players, the issue of then paying the selectors is questionable.
There can be little honour for a senior player under such a policy. What the board is essentially telling the player is that his time, in their opinion, is up and he should now make the decision of how soon he intends to quit. Instead of a straightforward firing, this is like asking an employee to resign. It would certainly not go down well with the players who would have felt they had served their country long enough to deserve an honourable, even ostentatious exit.
The bigger problem, if one takes away reservations from the reservations on an individual level, is on a cricket perspective. By suggesting to the seniors to adapt to this policy, the signal being given is rather unfortunate on the team. For one, it is telling a struggling, practically redundant player that he can continue on so long as he specifies for how long he wishes to do so. On a more practical cricketing sense, the execution of the policy would suggest that the player gets a free ride in every match of the series, irrespective of his performance.
But where does that leave the team? After all, to accommodate the last wishes of a cricketer’s career days, is not the team strength being compromised when a fitter, younger, perhaps even more talented player is forced to wait in the wings? Is it not stalling a team’s chance to succeed? Can a team afford to risk a series because the board and selectors want to ensure that the difficult decision is taken out of their hands and thrust upon a cricketer who may or may not be operating out of his own vested interests in light of the fact that his playing days are virtually over?
By bowing to cater to an individual over the team, it goes against the very ethic of the sport where no man is above the game. And this ‘noble’ line of thought towards the senior player is also a disguise because it is a self serving policy of the board and selectors. A policy like this also suggests that the players do not have their heart in the right place and are putting their interests before the team. Even worse, it shows the weakness within the selection panel and of the board who are afraid of cracking the whip if in their opinion, a player is overstaying at the expense of the team interests.
No one said the selectors’ job was easy or that of a player to choose or even recognize that he is perhaps now coming in the way of the team success after he has gone past his best service years. But there are many unsettling questions and angles to this kind of policy implementation. It appears unfair on the players and from cricketing logic, tragic for a team whose controls are now vested in choosing its team composition not on the basis of the eleven best players likely to win the game for the team. Like the cliché, something about it says it is simply not cricket.
